[Mlir-commits] [mlir] [mlir] List lead maintainers for MLIR (PR #146928)

[Mehdi Amini]

joker-eph wrote:

It's weird you want to take the approach of being very "process oriented" and focus on the "legalese" instead trying to facilitate a resolution here.

I didn't try to discuss legalese so far because it seemed secondary to me: the trust relationship of the community with respect to the area team is what matters more.
But if we have to talk purely about the rules and I take a closer look at it, here is my read of the current LLVM documentation:

> Second, area teams are responsible for maintaining an up-to-date and comprehensive list of maintainers for their area of the project. They can nominate any individual they deem appropriate as maintainer of any area they are responsible for. 

Here the area team can **nominate** maintainer, not **decide** who is/isn't a maintainer. So you made here a nomination, we have to look into how these are approved then. It is explicitly mentioned also:

> Note: This proposal does not change the existing developer policy for maintainer nomination, nor does it give area teams the exclusive ability to nominate maintainers.

Luckily this is covered in the developer policy:

> To become a new maintainer, you can volunteer yourself by posting a PR which adds yourself to the area(s) you are volunteering for. Alternatively, an existing maintainer can nominate you by posting a PR, but the nominee must explicitly accept the PR so that it’s clear they agree to volunteer within the proposed area(s). The PR will be accepted so long as at least one maintainer in the same project vouches for their ability to perform the responsibilities and there are no explicit objections raised by the community.

I believe you made a nomination and we're in the case covered here.
You also didn't answer me explicitly on my self-nomination (it got ignored instead), I could also just send a PR of my own after all: nothing is specific to the area team here and it does not seem to. 
It's a bit concerning to me that the area team here comes across as acting as "it's our decision power so we decide" when the whole governance is about the area team being a facilitator in the first place, which I find a bit lacking here (and I would think this would be particularly important when you're both "judge and jury" like here).


https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146928