Www.rust-lang.org: "Governance" title perhaps too technical/political as a word

[jonathandturner]

At the risk of bikeshedding the word "Governance", I wanted to suggest that we might pick a word more closely related to the contents of the page.

The subtitle says "How Rust is built by its community" which is already a bit more friendly and a way to give the impression of the contents.

We may want to bend an invisible rule here and use a couple words. "How it's made" is almost the same size as Governance and feels like it speaks to the contents of the page more directly that the more abstract original word.

[ashleygwilliams]

i prefer "governance" to "how it's made" but i am open to other suggestions

[joshtriplett]

I did kinda like the old "Teams" or similar.

[ashleygwilliams]

@joshtriplett the complication unfortunately is we have more than "teams" now. we could try "teams and working groups" but we do theoretically at least also have shepards and peers, and we may create new types of roles later. so because "teams" means something specific i think we may need a more overarching term-

[ashleygwilliams]

maybe "people"?

[jonathandturner]

"participate", "leadership", "direction"

[aturon]

One nice aspect of "Governance", which I think @ashleygwilliams pointed out elsewhere: for big companies who are worried about how Rust operates/how to influence it, it's a very clear word choice to get them to the right place.

Personally, I really like the word as-is. I think it's clear, and shows how seriously we take this aspect of the project.

[jonathandturner]

@aturon - do you feel "leadership" does not connote the same to the corporate influencers?

Just looking for a word that is less fancy/high-brow and still gets the message across.

[ashleygwilliams]

i'll admit i agree with @aturon that i like how it currently is - though of the new suggestions, leadership is my favorite, if we opt to change it.

[aturon]

I'd be OK with Leadership, I think that achieves the goals I care about :+1:

[ashleygwilliams]

ok- consensus seems to be on Leadership. i'll leave this open for more feedback and then make a PR tomorrow morning.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Governance IMO is a bit better because it includes RFCs and other "governance" content, versus leadership which does not. This is quite minor though and I don't feel too strongly.

Governance is defined as "The act, process, or power of governing" versus leadership's more narrow "The position or office of a leader" -- I think the first better describes the content of the page.

[joshtriplett]

On November 19, 2018 2:18:34 PM PST, Aaron Turon [e-mail] wrote:

I'd be OK with Leadership, I think that achieves the goals I care about
:+1:

I really like "leadership" as well.

[ashleygwilliams]

i do think that @Mark-Simulacrum makes a good point. we'd like this section to be about people, but also the processes. does RFCs make sense under Leadership?, i'm going to postpone working on this as i think we're still pretty evenly divided between leaving it as is and changing it to Leadership.

[steveklabnik]

I think "governance" is the perfect word here. It's what people use to mean the thing this page is about. Yes, it's a bit of jargon, but it's the right jargon.

[Centril]

I like "governance" and that's the label I used on the rfcs repo for governance related subjects. :)

[aturon]

I'm going to go ahead and close out this issue for now, given the mixed feelings about changing. We can revisit if we get more feedback after launch.