llvm dev - Aug 2016 - [RFC] GitHub Survey - Please review

> I think it might be good to draw a clearer line between the
> contributor and their organization. I suspect Apple's infrastructure
> will be far more affected by the change than I will personally and
> there's not really a way to fit that information into the current
> survey.
> 
> Tim.
Excellent point.  Sony's infrastructure pain would be significant to
those of us having to implement the conversion, but that change would
be essentially invisible to the rest of the team as our internal branches
aren't going to look any different.  Data about our corporate pain would
be appropriate from a couple of people, but not from the rest of the team.
--paulr

On 19 August 2016 at 18:37, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
wrote:
> Excellent point.  Sony's infrastructure pain would be significant to
> those of us having to implement the conversion, but that change would
> be essentially invisible to the rest of the team as our internal branches
> aren't going to look any different.  Data about our corporate pain
would
> be appropriate from a couple of people, but not from the rest of the team.
I'm open to suggestions on how do we separate company's worries from
personal ones.

I'm assuming multiple people for some companies will reply. Are they
all giving their personal views or the company's? Would one person in
the company be selected to tell the tale, or do we join all responses
to mean the whole?

I don't have answer to those questions... :(

cheers,
--renato

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 10:42 AM
> To: Robinson, Paul
> Cc: Tim Northover; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] GitHub Survey - Please review
> 
> On 19 August 2016 at 18:37, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at
sony.com> wrote:
> > Excellent point.  Sony's infrastructure pain would be significant
to
> > those of us having to implement the conversion, but that change would
> > be essentially invisible to the rest of the team as our internal
> branches
> > aren't going to look any different.  Data about our corporate pain
would
> > be appropriate from a couple of people, but not from the rest of the
> team.
> 
> I'm open to suggestions on how do we separate company's worries
from
> personal ones.
yeah, it seems like there would be a set of concerns relevant to those
who maintain some kind of infrastructure that draws on the upstream
repo to build an internal repo.  This is different from concerns about
interacting directly with upstream.  Some of us do both. :-)

Maybe divide the survey into sections, and sequence through different
sections depending on the answers to preliminary questions. So you could
ask (some better-phrased version of) "do you maintain infrastructure that 
draws on the upstream repository?"
If yes, you get directed to an extra section of the survey to answer the 
cost/benefit questions as they pertain to your infrastructure, separately 
from the section about your individual interactions with upstream.  And
people who answer No don't have to bother with that section.
> 
> I'm assuming multiple people for some companies will reply. Are they
> all giving their personal views or the company's? Would one person in
> the company be selected to tell the tale, or do we join all responses
> to mean the whole?
> 
> I don't have answer to those questions... :(
I had that exact same question, and now I've had time to think about it.

Early on in my interactions with the LLVM community (stay with me, I'll
get there) it became apparent that one's corporate affiliation didn't
really matter that much.  It's a community of individuals, some of whom
happen to be working on the same projects or with consistent goals or
maybe just for the same employer.  Ultimately it's good to have a
collectively positive reputation, but my perception is that (hopefully)
when I'm shooting my mouth off it doesn't really reflect badly on the 
rest of the team.

Being individuals, not everybody in one organization will do things the 
same way.  I use SVN, somebody else might use git.  We have folks focused 
on the coverage or static analyzer or sanitizers, which I'm not, and so 
their concerns will (reasonably) be different from mine.

Therefore, rather than try to come up with a collective "Sony
response"
I'm going to encourage my teammates to take the survey, with the only 
caveat being that we try to answer the affiliation question the same way.
And, the few of us directly involved with the infrastructure bits would 
appreciate being able to answer differently for those bits than for what 
we do individually.
HTH,
--paulr
> 
> cheers,
> --renato

Thanks, overal the survey LGTM; as for:
> On Aug 19, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On 19 August 2016 at 18:37, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at
sony.com> wrote:
>> Excellent point.  Sony's infrastructure pain would be significant
to
>> those of us having to implement the conversion, but that change would
>> be essentially invisible to the rest of the team as our internal
branches
>> aren't going to look any different.  Data about our corporate pain
would
>> be appropriate from a couple of people, but not from the rest of the
team.
> 
> I'm open to suggestions on how do we separate company's worries
from
> personal ones.
Let people name a representative person that maintains the infrastructure of
their group/organisation?

- Matthias