[WIP] Tweak T-rustdoc processes docs

[fmease]

Follow-up to #852.

Rendered

[fmease]

cc @GuillaumeGomez (to avoid duplicate efforts; but this is still very much WIP)

[GuillaumeGomez]

Nice, thanks! Good start already. :)

[fmease]

Re. meetings: We should make sure that we put new P-critical+P-high T-rustdoc issues into the agenda. CC #t-rustdoc > Unaddressed P-critical stable-to-beta regression @ 💬, #t-rustdoc > [meta] independent prioritization process @ 💬.

As an aside, T-compiler or rather T-compiler-ops have an agenda generator btw, but it's likely overkill for us / we'd probably need to refit it for our purposes.

[apiraino]

BTW if you need (or wish) something like our agenda generator, LMK :)

[rustbot]

☔ The latest upstream changes (possibly #1023) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[apiraino]

yo @fmease friendly ping about this - when you have time :)

[jyn514]

@fmease 👋 this change already looks quite good to me :) are you happy with merging it as-is and making fixes in follow-ups?

View changes since this review

[fmease]

Most changes are just <!-- --> comments and some things are outdated by now (e.g., #t-rustdoc/private membership no longer needs to be updated manually on Zulip).

I might extract the "repo" change into a separate PR but the rest was blocked on me actually properly writing prose. I also kinda got annoyed and confused by the word "proposal" (which we copied from T-compiler's policy) that I think is to be understood very generally to even include the most informal kinds of proposals (e.g., loosely proposed bug fixes on Zulip) unless I'm mistaken. Taking that understanding to the extreme I then thought about all the ways even the smallest "proposals" can be posed by people and can be accepted formally or informally (I then wondered how binding a given approval is etc. etc.). I then got lost in the sauce trying to formalize all of this >.<.