# Create a toolchain team. [Pull request](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/179) ## Table of contents - [Problem](#problem) - [Background](#background) - [Proposal](#proposal) - [Scope](#scope) - [Rationale](#rationale) - [Open questions](#open-questions) - [Should the name of the team be "toolchain team" or "implementation team"?](#should-the-name-of-the-team-be-toolchain-team-or-implementation-team) ## Problem The development of a toolchain for Carbon needs a team of people to oversee it. This will primarily involve code reviews and ensuring the quality of the end toolchain, and includes significant work around compile time efficiency as well as developing a cohesive set of libraries for use in developer tools and other contexts. ## Background This is largely a technical team that can fluidly evolve over time as people have time and energy to commit to developing the toolchain's codebase itself. ## Proposal Create a team from initial volunteers and evolve it over time based on who ends up contributing. Notably, contributions can be to the design, documentation, and code _review_ in addition to code or patches themselves. ### Scope Beyond the traditional components of a language toolchain, this team should also cover any needed code review and oversight for other implementation efforts within the Carbon project, such as supporting tools and test suites related to the language itself. There may be some overlap between this _language_ infrastructure and the _project_ infrastructure covered by the [admins](/docs/project/groups.md#admins). This proposal doesn't suggest a hard delineation between these, and if in doubt or there is disagreement, it should be escalated to the [core team](/docs/project/groups.md) rather than spending too much time defining precisely disjoint scopes. ## Rationale Carbon's goals include providing a reference implementation and tooling. Delivering this complex software requires a dedicated team, vision, leadership, and a degree of autonomy. ### Open questions #### Should the name of the team be "toolchain team" or "implementation team"? Some core team members expressed a preference for "implementation team", none expressed a preference for "toolchain team", all were fine either way. As gribozavr noted, and everyone at the review meeting agreed, the team should be free to choose its own name.