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

[Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev]

On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 10:48 AM Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Certainly, with Bugzilla->GitHub, it was widely communicated that we
> planned to migrate, at some point, and there was consensus that this was a
> good idea. Yet, it was still a surprise that it was going to happen
> imminently, with no prior review from (or communcation with) the community
> as to the *actual final plan*.
>
>
>
> I think the Working Groups should have a degree of autonomy in working out
> the details of a plan, especially because the details can change due to
> unexpected situations, or changing circumstances.  As a matter of fact, I
> think that a part of the purpose of a WG is to be the delegate that
> executes an idea that the community has accepted.
>

I still believe that even after an idea has been accepted, while whoever is
working on the plan should have autonomy in how they want to achieve it,
the final result  (that is the "what" instead of the "how") is important to
be publicly presented before final deployment. Basically there should be a
step to review that the actual deployment we end up with matches the
current workflow of folks or that there are clear migration steps.


>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Krzysztof Parzyszek  kparzysz at quicinc.com   AI tools development
>
>
>
> *From:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *On Behalf Of *James Y
> Knight via llvm-dev
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 27, 2022 4:54 PM
> *To:* Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com>
> *Cc:* Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>;
> llvm-admin at lists.llvm.org; Joshua Cranmer <pidgeot18 at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] LLVM Discourse migration: goals justify means?
>
>
>
> *WARNING:* This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary
> of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 4:04 PM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> From my perspective, I feel like a lot of the frustration around some
> of these infrastructure projects could be avoided by improved communication
> to the community about the status of these projects.
>
>
>
> Yes, this is the problem. For both issue-tracking and mailing-list
> migration, I think that the announcement of an *imminent* migration
> came as a surprise to most of the community. Certainly, with
> Bugzilla->GitHub, it was widely communicated that we planned to migrate, at
> some point, and there was consensus that this was a good idea. Yet, it was
> still a surprise that it was going to happen imminently, with no prior
> review from (or communcation with) the community as to the *actual final
> plan*. For the discourse migration, it was a surprise that it's going to
> be happening at all -- the previous thread ended with questions, not
> conclusions, and there was no follow-up until "It's happening now".
> Although, apparently, if I'd've read the Foundation board minutes, I
> would've known...
>
>
>
> It quite surprises me that, from all appearances, the LLVM IWG is not
> actually the entity coordinating or running these projects, but rather that
> apparently they're run by the LLVM Foundation Board, completely
> independently from the IWG. Now, I'm not in either group, so maybe I'm
> mistaken, but:
>
>  Discourse: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-iwg/issues/47 "figure out if the
> IWG should help with the migration. If not: close the issue."
>
>  Bugzilla: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-iwg/issues/56 "Just for tracking
> the infrastructure effort, the IWG is not involved in this activity."
>
>
>
> Even if these projects are sponsored by the Foundation, and the person
> doing the technical work is a Foundation board member, I feel like the
> projects ought to be coordinated in public under the auspices of the IWG,
> rather than coordinated via private Foundation board meetings. (Otherwise,
> what's the point of the IWG?)
>
>
>
> And, please note, I totally understand *just how hard and time-consuming* it
> is to run one of these migrations, both technically *and* socially. I
> really do want to support people who are trying to get infrastructure work
> done. And I really would like to encourage the ability to make a decision
> in less than 2 years. But, the almost complete lack of communication and
> information -- to anyone outside of the Foundation Board -- makes it quite
> difficult not to feel frustrated.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220128/71fc9a74/attachment.html>