Add State Of Rust triage procedure

[XAMPPRocky]

Rendered

cc @Mark-Simulacrum

[BatmanAoD]

A few things to resolve:

• Sometimes the active RFC is superseded without being closed; this is not always obvious without clicking through to the RFC, then to the tracking issue, then to links in the tracking issue, finally arriving at a new RFC and associated tracking issue.
  • It's probably worth explicitly mentioning in the procedure that the linked RFC may have been superseded.
  • Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's always clear which RFC is "active"...when there's confusion, should we just ask for feedback in the related RFC threads?
• Should we have guidelines on what conditions warrant pinging the participants in the tracking-issue thread? For instance, if a tracking issue hasn't been updating in a few weeks, but you suspect (for some reason) that work may have been done without updating the issue, does that warrant a ping?

[XAMPPRocky]

Yes, I meant to have an item about pinging, I just forgot it. I was thinking if there's been seemingly no activity for 21 days/3 weeks. I was wondering who should be pinged though? The creator of the tracking issue? The team responsible for the RFC?

[BatmanAoD]

@Aaronepower I think it probably depends on the state of the issue. From most to least specific:

• If someone has started implementing it: ping them; if they've been pinged already and haven't responded for a week (or two?), consider it an "orphaned" implementation
• If no one has started implementing it, or if it's "orphaned": ping the relevant team for implementing (probably the compiler team for language features?)
• If there's no clear choice for the team that should be doing the implementation, ping the team and/or individual(s) responsible for the RFC

[XAMPPRocky]

@BatmanAoD I've added in those instructions, feel free to review!

[BatmanAoD]

Looks good! I've submitted some minor edits as a PR against your fork's master branch.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

This looks good with one additional note.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

FWIW, I think this should essentially never happen. Could we add a "please add this to release team meeting notes" so we can discuss what went wrong to let this happen? Ideally all RFCs are pretty much well placed to be implemented by a concrete team(s).

[Centril]

Yeah I cannot recall an instance where I made a tracking issue with no responsible team.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Okay, let's merge this! Thanks!

I think it might be worth talking to @Centril about this as well to possibly help integrate this into the normal RFC merge procedure, since they've been doing quite a bit of that lately :)