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

[Mehdi Amini]

joker-eph wrote:

> We're neither judge nor jury. 

I probably didn't make my point clear: there is a situation with a disagreement somehow, and the area team is supposed to be the facilitator for such cases, but since the disagreement stem from an action of the area team, that means you have to facilitate a decision on this action you initiated, this is what I meant by "judge and jury". It's not a criticism, it's just that being in this situation I would think that there would be more attempt to find a way to reach a consensual agreement instead of what I perceive to be an attitude of "this is our decision, deal with it" (which is almost word-to-word what I was answered privately before the discussion here!).

> I'm having trouble understanding your reaction,

So basically I self-nominating myself, I got ignored/rejected by the area team, without being reached to about it, and then when asking privately to some member of the area team questions about it to be able to understand I receive a non-answer   along the line of "this is the decision, I stand by it".
And you don't see why I would have a problem with this?  

I also got very conflicting messaging where one member of the area team said "the lead one is just area team copied. As it would be the current escalation path - but should only be an escalation path", which seemed reasonable to me (also the process must be bootstrapped...), but then I got a very different messaging from @ftynse which denied this was the case and insisted these were actually individual nominations. It's been weird that when I repeated the answer I got from one area team member as an hypothesis above it got weirdly reframed as an accusation somehow.

> I am not "speaking legalese" (another unnecessary slander),

Slander? Really? I wasn't even aware of any negative connotations of the word "legalese": to me it just means to have a strict reading of the letter of law (here that would be the developer policy and other written processes). Sticking to the letter of the policy is one valid approach of facilitating decisions (it does not help understanding decisions when you're on the other side though: so pardon me for expressing my lack of understanding).

> It's clear you disagree with the community policies, 

@AaronBallman : can you elaborate where did I disagree with the community policy? I expressed a problem I have the nomination, just as mentioned in the developer policy. I would expect the area team to facilitate a resolution instead of just working around my questions as "not following the policy", your message here is along the same lines: it's been all about processes!  I also expressed my concern with the area team **not acting as facilitator** here, in the way they answered my questions (first privately), which is not a objection with the policy itself but with the way I perceived some steamrolling happening here.
I would also think that there shouldn't be double standards: if you are asking me to elaborate on my objection to a nomination, I should be entitled to hear about objections to my initial self-nomination don't I?

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