We are in the process of assembling the goal slate.

Summary

This is a draft for the eventual RFC proposing the 2025H1 goals.

Motivation

The 2025H1 goal slate consists of 2 project goals, of which we have selected (TBD) as flagship goals. Flagship goals represent the goals expected to have the broadest overall impact.

How the goal process works

Project goals are proposed bottom-up by an owner, somebody who is willing to commit resources (time, money, leadership) to seeing the work get done. The owner identifies the problem they want to address and sketches the solution of how they want to do so. They also identify the support they will need from the Rust teams (typically things like review bandwidth or feedback on RFCs). Teams then read the goals and provide feedback. If the goal is approved, teams are committing to support the owner in their work.

Project goals can vary in scope from an internal refactoring that affects only one team to a larger cross-cutting initiative. No matter its scope, accepting a goal should never be interpreted as a promise that the team will make any future decision (e.g., accepting an RFC that has yet to be written). Rather, it is a promise that the team are aligned on the contents of the goal thus far (including the design axioms and other notes) and will prioritize giving feedback and support as needed.

Of the proposed goals, a small subset are selected by the roadmap owner as flagship goals. Flagship goals are chosen for their high impact (many Rust users will be impacted) and their shovel-ready nature (the org is well-aligned around a concrete plan). Flagship goals are the ones that will feature most prominently in our public messaging and which should be prioritized by Rust teams where needed.

Rust’s mission

Our goals are selected to further Rust's mission of empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software. Rust targets programs that prioritize

• reliability and robustness;
• performance, memory usage, and resource consumption; and
• long-term maintenance and extensibility.

We consider "any two out of the three" as the right heuristic for projects where Rust is a strong contender or possibly the best option.

Axioms for selecting goals

We believe that...

• Rust must deliver on its promise of peak performance and high reliability. Rust’s maximum advantage is in applications that require peak performance or low-level systems capabilities. We must continue to innovate and support those areas above all.
• Rust's goals require high productivity and ergonomics. Being attentive to ergonomics broadens Rust impact by making it more appealing for projects that value reliability and maintenance but which don't have strict performance requirements.
• Slow and steady wins the race. For this first round of goals, we want a small set that can be completed without undue stress. As the Rust open source org continues to grow, the set of goals can grow in size.

Guide-level explanation

Flagship goals

The flagship goals proposed for this roadmap are as follows:

(TBD)

Why these particular flagship goals?

(TBD--typically one paragraph per goal)

Project goals

The slate of additional project goals are as follows. These goals all have identified owners who will drive the work forward as well as a viable work plan. The goals include asks from the listed Rust teams, which are cataloged in the reference-level explanation section below.

Some goals here do not yet have an owner (look for the badge). Teams have reserved some capacity to pursue these goals but until an appropriate owner is found they are only considered provisionally accepted. If you are interested in serving as the owner for one of these orphaned goals, reach out to the mentor listed in the goal to discuss.

Reference-level explanation

The following table highlights the asks from each affected team. The "owner" in the column is the person expecting to do the design/implementation work that the team will be approving.

compiler team

lang team

leadership-council team

types team

Definitions

Definitions for terms used above:

• Author RFC and Implementation means actually writing the code, document, whatever.
• Design meeting means holding a synchronous meeting to review a proposal and provide feedback (no decision expected).
• RFC decisions means reviewing an RFC and deciding whether to accept.
• Org decisions means reaching a decision on an organizational or policy matter.
• Secondary review of an RFC means that the team is "tangentially" involved in the RFC and should be expected to briefly review.
• Stabilizations means reviewing a stabilization and report and deciding whether to stabilize.
• Standard reviews refers to reviews for PRs against the repository; these PRs are not expected to be unduly large or complicated.
• Other kinds of decisions:
  • Lang team experiments are used to add nightly features that do not yet have an RFC. They are limited to trusted contributors and are used to resolve design details such that an RFC can be written.
  • Compiler Major Change Proposal (MCP) is used to propose a 'larger than average' change and get feedback from the compiler team.
  • Library API Change Proposal (ACP) describes a change to the standard library.