<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=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 6, 2020, at 10:32 AM, Philip Reames <<a href="mailto:listmail@philipreames.com" class="">listmail@philipreames.com</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:7859A175-E17D-4529-A124-907950F2DFFE@nondot.org" class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><ol class="" start="2"><li class="">The must/should terminology should probably
be factored out once and referenced. As written, it
takes a little effort to be sure the definitions are
the same between the two uses.</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="">I’m not sure what you mean here. Do you have a recommended
approach?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Land yours, and if I still care, I'll send a patch. :)<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>WFM! :)<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:7859A175-E17D-4529-A124-907950F2DFFE@nondot.org" class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<ol class="" start="3">
<li class="">As I mentioned before, I'd advocate for the
notion of a sponsor (an existing LLVM contributor) for
each incubator. I'd have that a must on the incubator
list.</li></ol></div></div></blockquote>
<div class="">Yes, this is a good idea. The problem here is “how do we
decide who qualifies as a sponsor?”. I don’t know a good way
to say that - someone with N years of LLVM experience, M
patches, …? How does this get explained?</div>
</div>
</blockquote><p class="">You said elsewhere that we could let this evolve with
experience. I would take that sentiment, and apply it here. I'm
really more concerned about the expectations of the role (i.e.
some human familiar with LLVM norms willing to invest non-trivial
time), than I am the details of who is eligible.</p><p class="">Since I don't want this to be blocking item, why don't we land
what you have and I can draft something as a patch? It seems like
there's some general agreement about a potential issue and we just
need to find a way to address it. <br class="">
</p>
</div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Sounds great. I think this is something we can handle qualitatively as a concern raised in the RFC stage based on the details of the proposal. The LLVM Developer Policy doesn’t have to be a complete list of criteria, it just provides a general framework to set expectations.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Thank you for the feedback Philip!</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Chris</div><br class=""></body></html>