[llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process
Philip Reames via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Oct 5 11:29:20 PDT 2021
+1 to Renato's response here. I had the same thought, and Renato
phrased it much better than I'd have managed.
On 10/5/21 9:47 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 17:06, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> - Any other information that you think will help the Board of
> Directors make the best decision.
> - Foundation Board will have 30 days to make a final decision
> about using GitHub Pull Requests and then communicate a migration
> plan to the community.
> Hi Tom,
> Please help me here, I think I'm severely misunderstanding what this
> I'm reading it that the "Board of Directors" will make a decision and
> communicate to the community, apparently through some undisclosed
> internal process.
> For example:
> * What about people that are on holidays during the 30 days comment
> * What if the points are not made clear after 30 days?
> * How do we know the IWG will correctly summarise the comments to the
> * How does the board guarantee it will take all facts in
> consideration without bias?
> * What kind of recourse would the community have if the decision
> alienates a large part of the developers?
> Please understand that I'm not assuming malice *at all*. We're all
> humans, and in the effort to make some change happen we quite often
> let unconscious bias be the merits of our decisions.
> For context...
> Since its inception, the foundation has always steered away from
> technical decisions, always referring to the llvm-dev list for those.
> Previous long running contentious issues (Github, monorepo, CoC) were
> all decided by the community, in the llvm-dev list, and executed by
> the foundation.
> Recent discussions about the mailing list, irc, discord, discourse
> have emphasised that, even with an infrastructure working group, the
> views of the community are still too hard to predict and make it work
> for the majority. Neither the board of directors, nor the IWG are wide
> and diverse enough to make decisions that take most people's views
> into consideration. That is why we still rely on the dev list for
> large technical discussions and decisions.
> Code review and bug tracking are very much technical decisions. Not
> code directly, but how we all work. And there are a lot of us. Giving
> feedback and having no insight into the decision making process will
> certainly divide the community even more, if we're forced to accept
> whatever outcome.
> I can't see how this "solves" the problem of never-ending discussions,
> other than further fragmenting the community.
>  http://blog.llvm.org/2014/04/the-llvm-foundation.html
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev