<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi all,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Today, we maintain a high bar for getting a new subproject into LLVM: first a subproject has to be built far enough along to “prove its worth” to be part of the LLVM monorepo (e.g. demonstrate community, etc). Once conceptually approved, it needs to follow all of the policies and practices expected by an LLVM subproject.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This is problematic for a couple reasons: it implicitly means that projects have to start *somewhere else* but proactively decide to follow LLVM design methodology and principles in the hope of being accepted. It is sometimes socially difficult to get these projects going because there are many other forces that could encourage other practices. For example, I personally encountered this at Google with MLIR - “why aren’t you using Google coding standards?”, several of us are currently discussing this in a new skunkworks project in the “compilers for hardware” world, and the Flang and other projects have found this challenging in the past. Once the project gets to a point of critical mass with the “wrong” approach, it is very difficult and expensive to convert to the LLVM style, and from a social perspective, inertia sometimes leads to forking off to separate projects instead of folding back in to LLVM.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">A former colleague recently suggested the idea of introducing an incubator process of some sort (e.g. xref the <a href="https://incubator.apache.org/" class="">Apache version of this idea</a>). I think this is a really interesting idea, and it is much easier now that the majority of the “official” code is in the LLVM monorepo.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Here is a sketch of how this could work:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> - We maintain the same high bar to get into the LLVM monorepo, LLVM CI etc. No change here.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> - We have a very light-weight proposal process that allows people to create incubator projects in the LLVM organization, with no code up front. The project would be required to have e.g. a charter document and README.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> - Such projects are required to follow the LLVM developer policy, coding standards, CoC, etc, but can define their own stability and evolution process, code owners, etc.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> - When the project is ready to graduate, it would follow the existing process for becoming a first-class part of the mono repo.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> - We have some policy on when to retire/delete projects, which can be ironed out the first time it comes up (e.g. start with a nomination).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> - We could even try to help encourage new projects to include a ‘mentor’ that has experience with the LLVM project to help nudge things in the right direction and encourage proper development approach.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What do you think? Is anyone interested in helping to write up a more detailed proposal?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-Chris</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>