[llvm-dev] LLVM Discourse migration: goals justify means?

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

Same here.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022, 00:47 Philip Reames via llvm-dev, <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> I want to chime in to say that Roman is definitely not alone in his
> impressions here.  I have previously shared my objections to the
> original proposal, and will not repeat myself.
>
> I don't have the energy to engage in this discussion, and have already
> decided to put up with this and deal with the fallout. Given that,
> please do not expect further response from me on this topic.
>
> Philip
>
> On 1/26/22 2:36 PM, Roman Lebedev via llvm-dev wrote:
> > Hi all.
> >
> > As most of us here learned on Jan 7, apparently, we,
> > the LLVM community, have overwhelmingly supported
> > the decision to move to Discourse.
> >
> > It already raises a question as to how said decision was made,
> > and what exactly said "majority of the community" is.
> > While it is true that the LLVM RFC process is unclear at best,
> > in this particular case the problem becomes exceptionally egregious.
> >
> > While it may be a selection bias, as a data point,
> > everybody, that i regularly talk to, in #llvm IRC
> > were just as surprised to learn of said development as I was.
> >
> > There was no indication on e.g. llvm-dev@,
> > and in fact the last mention of the migration was:
> > https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2021-June/068449.html
> > (over half a year ago!), but even if you just look at said thread,
> > there were certain comments that weren't addressed, e.g.
> > https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2021-June/068406.html
> >
> > Hopefully, the "vote" wasn't held at the discourse itself,
> > otherwise it very much mirrors certain recent & future world events,
> > and does not paint the LLVM in a good light.
> >
> > I'm fearful that the same story is bound to happen yet again
> > with GitHub Pull Request migration, that all the multitude of complaints
> > that were received each time they were requested (and that happened
> > a number of times, hopefully not to exhaust those providing said
> feedback!)
> > will be just swept away and ignored, and the switch be pushed through
> > regardless, in the name of a noble "lowering the barrier of entry" goal.
> > (There's similar question about discord "RFC")
> >
> > So the first point I would like to raise is:
> > such painful, community-wide decisions **can not** be made in secret.
> > One way or another, it's going to affect every single LLVM developer,
> > be it one working on the upstream LLVM, or some downstream fork,
> > or those just wishing to keep up with the project.
> > **There should be transparency and accountability.**
> >
> > The second question I would like to raise is:
> > the blog post claims transparent, first-class email support,
> > but the mailing list mode can not actually be toggled on.
> > There is just no such checkbox, unlike some other discourse forum.
> > For me personally, that is a deal-breaker, and unless I'm able to
> > keep up to date with the discussions in the lists format,
> > I'm simply going to stop following discussions, period.
> >
> > While, I, personally, have not had much hands-on experience with
> > LLVM's discourse, mainly it's email side, I hear the situation
> > is not what the blogpost claims it to be, and there are other things
> > that aren't "just work", and that was known months ago, e.g.:
> >
> https://llvm.discourse.group/t/discourse-as-mailing-list-replacement-some-questions/3713/4
> >
> > Given that the hard switch point of Feb 1'st has already been set,
> > and is less than a week away, i'd like to hear some clarification
> > as to what is going on, and strongly recommend doing either of the
> following:
> > * STOP migration(s) due to "false start", the end status already being
> decided
> >    before the process even begun, and using the process just as a means
> >    to legalize the decision made beforehand.
> > * postponing the switch by a month (until March 1'st), or however long
> needed,
> >    effectively immediately, in order to make the migration actually
> possible
> >    by working out the issues that have come up during the migration.
> >
> > While what is written above is my personal view on things,
> > I do **not** believe the said view is unique to me.
> >
> > What are the foundation's thoughts on this?
> >
> > Roman
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> 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/20220127/f031ee31/attachment.html>