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

[Philip Reames via llvm-dev]

On 1/27/22 09:31, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev wrote:
>> In a broader sense, I want to part with this observation. In my experience, large projects develop a kind of "in-group", a set of people who need to be interacted with to get things done in the project. Of the projects I've worked with, LLVM has had the most opaque "in-group", in the sense that it's difficult for a beginner (or even more experienced contributors) to figure out who you need to get to review a patch, or when you've got enough agreement on an RFC to move forward with implementation. This is a bigger issue with LLVM in general, but the risk with respect to infrastructure in particular is that I am extremely worried that the LLVM infrastructure group is pushing away much or all of the "in-group", and that has incumbent risks for the future health of the project as a whole.
> The Infrastructure Working group is open to anyone.

Speaking as someone who joined the IWG, provided strongly negative 
feedback on the proposed discourse transitions, and then resigned 
because I didn't want my name associated with an effort likely to be so 
disastrous, I strongly question this assertion.

"We value your feedback" is pretty meaningless when that feedback is 
ignored.

(Apologies if this comes across as too snarky.  I tried to reword this a 
couple of times, but couldn't find a way to do so without loosing the 
important point.)

Philip