Review process for adding/changing tools in the SDK

[Hunter Freyer]

Hey Clay and Chase,

While we've tightened up some of the processes around adding FIDL/C++ libraries to the IDK, but for host tools, things are still a bit loosey-goosey. 

As owners for the Developer area, what would y'all like the process to be? Should one of the two of you be in the loop for all tools added to the IDK? Should we ensure CLI interfaces adhere to a style guide?

Thanks,

Hunter

[Seth Ladd]

cc @MJ Ramos 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "api-council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to api-council...@fuchsia.dev.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/fuchsia.dev/d/msgid/api-council/CAMkOBfvzt2a108C9L2Fc9P3-pmsjLM5utbF_Uaz2yK92u_mTew%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chase Latta]

Hunter, 

This is actually good timing because I have been thinking about this a bit lately and am working on a 1-pager around this topic. I don't think that the developer area in the API council is sufficient for all of our tooling and would like to create a tools council as an extension to the API council that looks at host tooling more holistically. More specifically, the council would be responsible for ensuring that our ecosystem of tools work well together, have good product fit, adhere to good a11y practices, can be distributed easily if they don't belong in the IDK, etc. So yes, we should tighten up our policies around CLI interfaces and such but I would like to have more people involved in the decisions around what tools go into the IDK. I will get an early draft of my higher level proposal out later today for you to look at.

Chase

[Chase Latta]

Here is the high level proposal I mentioned for a tools council. There is probably quite a bit we would need to flesh out but I wanted to start circulating this early. If folks feel like this is a good idea that I will turn this into an RFC.

Chase