David Wood

Marking as waiting on author since you've made this a draft.

@rust-lang/leadership-council Per the previous leadership council meeting, I drafted a document with a proposal for clarified responsibilities of the Project Directors, which has had an initial review by the project...

> It looks like the valgrind and LLVM tool patches were only just merged in the last couple months - are they included in published releases? It'll probably take at...

> Do we have a reference for the patchset enabling support in linux perf? I assumed that the tracking issue was correct on that front, I couldn't find a patch...

> > In contrast to [...], none of the traits proposed in this RFC are default bounds and therefore do not need to support being relaxed bounds, which avoids additional...

> To be clear, my main issue here is that the RFC misrepresents the trade-off between `?` syntax and the proposed syntax. As far as I can tell, this trade-off...

> If a new user sees `T: ?Sized` for the first time, they may be confused for a moment, then google it and find [the documentation](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/marker/trait.Sized.html), which explains it. >...

> There is a point that I don't see discussed here: you discuss what will be the learning effect for new users, but we also need to consider experienced user....

> Personally, I prefer the T: ?Trait syntax, which I read as "T may not be an instance of Trait." Relevant to this proposal, I'd also assume that T: ?SuperTrait...

For those following along or catching up, these are the notable the changes to the RFC since this was posted: - Clarify proposed behaviour for `?Trait` syntax for non-`Sized`, which...