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

[Mehdi Amini]

joker-eph wrote:

> Apologies, I didn't intend to put words in your mouth. That was my perception of your perspective based on comments like:

Thanks for elaborating @AaronBallman, there has been phases in the discussion (including some private ones) which are difficult to disentangle. Some of it has been my ignorance of the process (I didn't disagree with the process, just didn't remember about all the intricacy of it), but that was easily cleared out. So: sorry for the confusion on this PR, and thanks again for attempting to tag along.

> "Everything but" is not a lead maintainer 

One issue here is that there wasn't a call for nomination for lead maintainer, there was form that (from memory) didn't have a box with areas (including "lead maintainer") but was asking something along the line of "which area do you want to maintain", and since the "tensor compiler" area is a recently well identified component that people stood up to maintain, I didn't feel like I was needed there, hence what I wrote! This is also why it feels to me like a "gotcha" and why I can't comprehend @ftynse 's answer here.
So there is the process as written in the policy, and then there is how it is put in practice. I don't want to fault the area team: it's hard to bootstrap things and I am certain that I wouldn't have been able to do a better job in this until opening this PR.
I wish the aftermath of opening the PR would have handled with more consideration instead of what I perceive as "hiding behind the process".

Now that it is cleared up, and for the sake of progress, let's get back to getting this done.

The role of "MLIR Lead Maintainers" is critical to the health and direction of the project. I believe we're looking for individuals with a substantial and broad track record of involvement across the project (and in particular in the more core components) — spanning architecture, diverse technical areas, and long-term impact. This includes demonstrated expertise through contributions such as code, reviews, and RFCs, as well as a deep understanding of the system’s design principles, trade-offs, and invariants — all of which have helped shape MLIR into what it is today.
While I have great respect for the contributions of all area team members, I do have some concerns regarding one of the nominees. To facilitate more focused and constructive discussion, would it make sense to split the nomination PRs so that each nomination can be evaluated independently? Or would the preference be to proceed with a single combined PR?

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