[llvm-dev] [PITCH] Improvements to LLVM Decision Making

[Chris Lattner via llvm-dev]

> On Jan 15, 2020, at 1:15 AM, James Henderson <jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> Overall, this sounds like a good proposal to me. I think I have some mild concerns regarding the decision making body, as I can't help but suspect that such a body will inevitably focus their decisions based on the opinions of the louder or more well known members of the community. While to a certain extent that may be appropriate (the more well-known members will typically have greater experience), I think it's important to make sure that the less well-known etc are not ignored completely. I don't have any concrete suggestions though, and I do agree that a decision making body would help clarify things if nothing else.

Agreed, I think that picking the decision making body is likely to be the hardest part.

> 
> One other thought: any formal review period needs to be long enough for people to contribute to if they have any annual leave from work or whatever. For example, if the review period were to be set to two weeks, I'd have missed proposals made at the start of roughly 2-3 different 2 week periods last year. It would have been worse for 1 week. On the other hand, a 3 week period would have meant I'd be able to read and respond to every review. Note this is just an example - I'm not concretely suggesting 3 weeks; perhaps it should be longer for bigger changes etc?

I think it is probably dependent on the decision in question.  If it is something like relicensing, you’d want a month or something really long.  If it is something simpler, then perhaps a week is ok.  I think we can figure this out on a case-by-case basis when the process goes into effect, it isn’t something that we need to prearrange as part of the process.

-Chris

> 
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 06:59, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Numerous people have been bringing up challenges with consensus driven decision making in the LLVM community.  After considering this and seeing the frustrations it is causing many people, I think we should make a formal process change to help improve decision making going forward.
> 
> Here is the outline of the draft proposal <https://gist.github.com/lattner/e3679998a7609c99b1243f09d30f0132>.  Caveats: this is itself just a draft proposal to inspire discussion not a mandate - I welcome feedback, thoughts and concerns, ideas of how to make this better, or better ideas/approaches overall on how we can level up the community.
> 
> Please let me know what you think, thanks!
> 
> -Chris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev <https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200115/f54c7f6f/attachment.html>