[llvm-dev] LLVM Incubator + new projects draft

[Chris Lattner via llvm-dev]

> On Jul 6, 2020, at 10:32 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I’m not sure what you mean here.  Do you have a recommended approach?
> Land yours, and if I still care, I'll send a patch.  :)

WFM! :)
>>> 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.
>> 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?
> 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.
> 
> 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.  
> 

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.

Thank you for the feedback Philip!

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200706/13008759/attachment.html>