[llvm-dev] Mailing List Status Update
Philip Reames via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jun 23 09:02:04 PDT 2021
On 6/21/21 12:53 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2021, at 10:50 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> Specific to the dev lists, I'm very hesitant about moving from
>> mailing lists to discourse. Why?
>> Well, the first and most basic is I'm worried about having core
>> infrastructure out of our own control. For all their problems,
>> mailing lists are widely supported, there are many
>> vendors/contractors available. For discourse, as far as I can tell,
>> there's one vendor. It's very much a take it or leave it situation.
>> The ability to preserve discussion archives through a transition away
>> from discourse someday concerns me. I regularly and routinely need
>> to dig back through llvm-dev threads which are years old. I've also
>> recently had some severely negative customer experiences with other
>> tools (most recently discord), and the thought of having my
>> employability and ability to contribute to open source tied to my
>> ability to get a response from customer service teams at some third
>> party vendor I have no leverage with, bluntly, scares me.
>> Second, I feel that we've overstated the difficulty of maintaining
>> mailing lists. I have to acknowledge that I have little first hand
>> experience administering mailman, so maybe I'm way off here.
> Hi Philip,
> First, despite the similar names, Discord is very different than
> Discourse. Here I’m only commenting about Discourse, I have no
> opinion about Discord.
I'm aware, thank you. I'm sorry that my wording seems to have caused
confusion on this point.
> In this case, I think we need to highly weight the opinions of the
> people actively mainlining the existing systems. It has become clear
> that the priority isn’t “control our own lists”, it is “make sure they
> stay up” and “get LLVM people out of maintaining them”.
> The ongoing load of maintaining these lists (including moderation) and
> of dealing with the security issues that keep coming up are carried by
> several individuals, not by the entire community. I’m concerned about
> those individuals, but I’m also more broadly concerned about *any*
> individuals being solely responsible for LLVM infra. Effectively
> every case we’ve had where an individual has driving LLVM infra turns
> out to be a problem. LLVM as a project isn’t good at running web
> scale infra, but we highly depend on it.
> It seems clear to me that we should outsource this to a proven vendor.
I agree with everything you said up to here. The goals make sense, and
I fully support them.
> Your concerns about discourse seem very similar to the discussion
> about moving to Github (being a single vendor who was once much
> smaller than Microsoft). I think your concerns are best addressed by
> having the IWG propose an answer to “what is our plan if
> Discourse-the-company goes sideways?"
This is where I disagree. The key point for me is that mailman3 exists
and there are commercial vendors who specialize in exactly what we
need. I don't object at all to having a proven vendor. I just don't
see discourse as being the obvious choice.
Now, as I said in my first email, you don't actually need to convince me
here. If the move is made to discourse, I will follow. At the end of
the day, a decision does need to be made, and I'm willing to defer to
those putting in the work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev