[llvm-dev] [PROPOSAL] Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve contentious decisions

[Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev]

Hi Chris,

Overall, having a defined/more-formal process to fall back on (rather than start with—a problem with other processes I’ve had to use) seems like a good idea, and what’s outlined here seems basically fine.  Two specific comments:

  *   Still seeing a reference to discourse (last para of Proposed Solution, after item 9).  Thought that should be gone?
  *   I thought about the Yet Another Mailing List idea, and concluded that’s not a good idea, unless all RFCs also go there.  In practical terms, if you want downstream consumers (or other more casual observers) to notice/track proposals, all proposals need to be in the same place.  Whether that’s llvm-dev, or a new “llvm-rfc” list (or whatever), splitting up Where To Look doesn’t help people find anything.[1]

As an aside, I noticed a use of the term “core LLVM contributor” which is not a defined role in this project.  I’ve actually bumped into this before, had a panel proposal bounced by a Dev Meeting Program Committee due to lack of “core contributors” signed up to participate.  It’s a notion in people’s heads, and probably well defined elsewhere, but is a very fuzzy notion on this project.  If we don’t have the role formally, best not to refer to it?

Thanks for driving this, and basically +1 from me.
--paulr

[1] I was once on a project where we had several topic-oriented forums; in particular one call Methods, and one called Designs.  People would post process/tip kinds of things in Methods, and design documents/discussions in Designs.  Until one day the tech lead decided to post a pointer to his separate design document in Methods, arguing that a pointer to a document is a Method not a Design.  I argued (in vain) that having to look in Methods for design info was counter-productive.
So, let’s not split how to find RFCs and how to find Proposals into two separate places, okay?


From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Chris Lattner via llvm-dev
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 5:21 PM
To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [PROPOSAL] Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve contentious decisions

Thank you to Mehdi and Kit for their feedback on this thread so far - I’d really love to hear from others in the community as well, even if it is a simple “+1 this sounds great” or “I’m concerned about XYZ specific aspect of this” or “-1, LLVM has no problems making decisions” :-)

-Chris


On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:19 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org<mailto:clattner at nondot.org>> wrote:

Hi all,

Following up on the extensive discussions since January, many of us would like to put in place a process to improve LLVM’s decision making process for contentious issues.  I’ve put together a proposal for how this works, and am recursively using it to get feedback on the process itself.  Thank you to the many people who contributed great ideas and improvements during the pitch phases and early drafts of the doc.

Because this is a weird case, I’m not setting up the standard review manager team for this.  We’ll wing it, and if it doesn’t work out, we can try again.

-Chris

——

Hello LLVM community,

The review of "Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve contentious decisions" begins now and runs through
June 12, 2020. The proposal is available online<https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/master/proposals/LP0001-LLVMDecisionMaking.md>.

Feedback is an important part of the LLVM Proposal process. All review feedback
should be either on this forum thread or, if you would like to keep your feedback
private, directly to one of the review managers.

**What goes into a review?**

The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through
constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of LLVM. When
writing your response, here are some questions you might want to answer in your
review:

*   What is your evaluation of the proposal?  What positive or negative
    implications would accepting this have?
*   Do you have experience from other communities that relates to this
    issue and is important to consider?
*   How involved have you been in the LLVM project?  Frequent contributor,
    occasional contributor, user of LLVM libraries, user of LLVM-based tools,
    or other?
*   Self Evaluation: How much effort did you put into your review and how
    knowledgeable are you about this area? For example, a quick reading or an
    in-depth study?

In addition to your opinion and thoughts, please include any additional
framing that may be useful.

Thank you,

Chris Lattner
Review Manager



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200608/b25722c3/attachment-0001.html>