llvm dev - Jun 2020 - [PROPOSAL] Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve contentious decisions

Hi all,

Following up on the extensive discussions since January, many of us would like
to put in place a process to improve LLVM’s decision making process for
contentious issues.  I’ve put together a proposal for how this works, and am
recursively using it to get feedback on the process itself.  Thank you to the
many people who contributed great ideas and improvements during the pitch phases
and early drafts of the doc.

Because this is a weird case, I’m not setting up the standard review manager
team for this.  We’ll wing it, and if it doesn’t work out, we can try again.

-Chris

——

Hello LLVM community,

The review of "Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve contentious
decisions" begins now and runs through
June 12, 2020. The proposal is available online
<https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/master/proposals/LP0001-LLVMDecisionMaking.md>.

Feedback is an important part of the LLVM Proposal process. All review feedback
should be either on this forum thread or, if you would like to keep your
feedback
private, directly to one of the review managers.

**What goes into a review?**

The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through
constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of LLVM. When 
writing your response, here are some questions you might want to answer in your
review:

*   What is your evaluation of the proposal?  What positive or negative 
    implications would accepting this have?
*   Do you have experience from other communities that relates to this 
    issue and is important to consider?
*   How involved have you been in the LLVM project?  Frequent contributor, 
    occasional contributor, user of LLVM libraries, user of LLVM-based tools,
    or other?
*   Self Evaluation: How much effort did you put into your review and how
    knowledgeable are you about this area? For example, a quick reading or an 
    in-depth study?

In addition to your opinion and thoughts, please include any additional 
framing that may be useful.

Thank you,

Chris Lattner
Review Manager


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200602/c44c06f0/attachment.html>

Evaluation of the proposal:
I fully support this proposal and think it will overall have a positive
impact on the LLVM community.

Related Experience:
None external, but I have been involved in various internal guidelines
for decision making (both creating them and following them). I think
this proposal strikes a nice balance between additional process and
giving members of the community a (time-boxed) opportunity to provide
their inputs. As with any proposal like this, it is likely subject to
change over time, but I think this is a very good starting point.

Involvement in LLVM
Occasional contributor, heavy user. 

Self Evaluation
I went through several iterations of the proposal on google docs and
suggested a few changes. I've skimmed through the processes by the other
communities reference in the document to get a high level understanding
of how they work, but have not participated in them first hand. As
mentioned above though, I've been through several different versions of
similar processes through my work and can appreciate the motivation for
this, and see the benefits of much of what is proposed here.

Additional Comments
A few comments on the document:
1. It seems the current document has settled on using threads on
   llvm-dev, however there are still two reference to the LLVM Proposal
   Reviews category on Discourse: last paragraph of Proposed Solution
   section, first paragraph of the Review Discussion Template section. 
2. I think it would be nice to try and keep the proposal document on
   GitHub as up-to-date as possible as it evolves based on the discussion on
   llvm-dev. I know this was mentioned and resolved on google docs, but
   something short like: "The review managers and/or authors will update
the
   document on GitHub as the proposal evolves during discussions" as
   part of step 7, would be good (IMO).

Thanks,

Kit

Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Following up on the extensive discussions since January, many of us would
like to put in place a process to improve LLVM’s decision making process for
contentious issues.  I’ve put together a proposal for how this works, and am
recursively using it to get feedback on the process itself.  Thank you to the
many people who contributed great ideas and improvements during the pitch phases
and early drafts of the doc.
>
> Because this is a weird case, I’m not setting up the standard review
manager team for this.  We’ll wing it, and if it doesn’t work out, we can try
again.
>
> -Chris
>
> ——
>
> Hello LLVM community,
>
> The review of "Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve contentious
decisions" begins now and runs through
> June 12, 2020. The proposal is available online
<https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/master/proposals/LP0001-LLVMDecisionMaking.md>.
>
> Feedback is an important part of the LLVM Proposal process. All review
feedback
> should be either on this forum thread or, if you would like to keep your
feedback
> private, directly to one of the review managers.
>
> **What goes into a review?**
>
> The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review
through
> constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of LLVM.
When
> writing your response, here are some questions you might want to answer in
your
> review:
>
> *   What is your evaluation of the proposal?  What positive or negative 
>     implications would accepting this have?
> *   Do you have experience from other communities that relates to this 
>     issue and is important to consider?
> *   How involved have you been in the LLVM project?  Frequent contributor, 
>     occasional contributor, user of LLVM libraries, user of LLVM-based
tools,
>     or other?
> *   Self Evaluation: How much effort did you put into your review and how
>     knowledgeable are you about this area? For example, a quick reading or
an
>     in-depth study?
>
> In addition to your opinion and thoughts, please include any additional 
> framing that may be useful.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Chris Lattner
> Review Manager
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:57 PM, Kit Barton <kit.barton at gmail.com>
wrote:
> A few comments on the document:
> 1. It seems the current document has settled on using threads on
>   llvm-dev, however there are still two reference to the LLVM Proposal
>   Reviews category on Discourse: last paragraph of Proposed Solution
>   section, first paragraph of the Review Discussion Template section. 
This was a mistake, fixed.
> 2. I think it would be nice to try and keep the proposal document on
>   GitHub as up-to-date as possible as it evolves based on the discussion on
>   llvm-dev. I know this was mentioned and resolved on google docs, but
>   something short like: "The review managers and/or authors will
update the
>   document on GitHub as the proposal evolves during discussions" as
>   part of step 7, would be good (IMO).
Agreed - confirmed and added as an example of this.  Thanks!

-Chris

Thank you to Mehdi and Kit for their feedback on this thread so far - I’d really
love to hear from others in the community as well, even if it is a simple “+1
this sounds great” or “I’m concerned about XYZ specific aspect of this” or “-1,
LLVM has no problems making decisions” :-)

-Chris
> On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:19 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org>
wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Following up on the extensive discussions since January, many of us would
like to put in place a process to improve LLVM’s decision making process for
contentious issues.  I’ve put together a proposal for how this works, and am
recursively using it to get feedback on the process itself.  Thank you to the
many people who contributed great ideas and improvements during the pitch phases
and early drafts of the doc.
> 
> Because this is a weird case, I’m not setting up the standard review
manager team for this.  We’ll wing it, and if it doesn’t work out, we can try
again.
> 
> -Chris
> 
> ——
> 
> Hello LLVM community,
> 
> The review of "Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve contentious
decisions" begins now and runs through
> June 12, 2020. The proposal is available online
<https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/master/proposals/LP0001-LLVMDecisionMaking.md>.
> 
> Feedback is an important part of the LLVM Proposal process. All review
feedback
> should be either on this forum thread or, if you would like to keep your
feedback
> private, directly to one of the review managers.
> 
> **What goes into a review?**
> 
> The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review
through
> constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of LLVM.
When
> writing your response, here are some questions you might want to answer in
your
> review:
> 
> *   What is your evaluation of the proposal?  What positive or negative 
>     implications would accepting this have?
> *   Do you have experience from other communities that relates to this 
>     issue and is important to consider?
> *   How involved have you been in the LLVM project?  Frequent contributor, 
>     occasional contributor, user of LLVM libraries, user of LLVM-based
tools,
>     or other?
> *   Self Evaluation: How much effort did you put into your review and how
>     knowledgeable are you about this area? For example, a quick reading or
an
>     in-depth study?
> 
> In addition to your opinion and thoughts, please include any additional 
> framing that may be useful.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Chris Lattner
> Review Manager
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200608/6f7f67ed/attachment.html>

Hi Chris,

Overall, having a defined/more-formal process to fall back on (rather than start
with—a problem with other processes I’ve had to use) seems like a good idea, and
what’s outlined here seems basically fine.  Two specific comments:

  *   Still seeing a reference to discourse (last para of Proposed Solution,
after item 9).  Thought that should be gone?
  *   I thought about the Yet Another Mailing List idea, and concluded that’s
not a good idea, unless all RFCs also go there.  In practical terms, if you want
downstream consumers (or other more casual observers) to notice/track proposals,
all proposals need to be in the same place.  Whether that’s llvm-dev, or a new
“llvm-rfc” list (or whatever), splitting up Where To Look doesn’t help people
find anything.[1]

As an aside, I noticed a use of the term “core LLVM contributor” which is not a
defined role in this project.  I’ve actually bumped into this before, had a
panel proposal bounced by a Dev Meeting Program Committee due to lack of “core
contributors” signed up to participate.  It’s a notion in people’s heads, and
probably well defined elsewhere, but is a very fuzzy notion on this project.  If
we don’t have the role formally, best not to refer to it?

Thanks for driving this, and basically +1 from me.
--paulr

[1] I was once on a project where we had several topic-oriented forums; in
particular one call Methods, and one called Designs.  People would post
process/tip kinds of things in Methods, and design documents/discussions in
Designs.  Until one day the tech lead decided to post a pointer to his separate
design document in Methods, arguing that a pointer to a document is a Method not
a Design.  I argued (in vain) that having to look in Methods for design info was
counter-productive.
So, let’s not split how to find RFCs and how to find Proposals into two separate
places, okay?


From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Chris
Lattner via llvm-dev
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 5:21 PM
To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [PROPOSAL] Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve
contentious decisions

Thank you to Mehdi and Kit for their feedback on this thread so far - I’d really
love to hear from others in the community as well, even if it is a simple “+1
this sounds great” or “I’m concerned about XYZ specific aspect of this” or “-1,
LLVM has no problems making decisions” :-)

-Chris


On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:19 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at
nondot.org<mailto:clattner at nondot.org>> wrote:

Hi all,

Following up on the extensive discussions since January, many of us would like
to put in place a process to improve LLVM’s decision making process for
contentious issues.  I’ve put together a proposal for how this works, and am
recursively using it to get feedback on the process itself.  Thank you to the
many people who contributed great ideas and improvements during the pitch phases
and early drafts of the doc.

Because this is a weird case, I’m not setting up the standard review manager
team for this.  We’ll wing it, and if it doesn’t work out, we can try again.

-Chris

——

Hello LLVM community,

The review of "Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve contentious
decisions" begins now and runs through
June 12, 2020. The proposal is available
online<https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/master/proposals/LP0001-LLVMDecisionMaking.md>.

Feedback is an important part of the LLVM Proposal process. All review feedback
should be either on this forum thread or, if you would like to keep your
feedback
private, directly to one of the review managers.

**What goes into a review?**

The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through
constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of LLVM. When
writing your response, here are some questions you might want to answer in your
review:

*   What is your evaluation of the proposal?  What positive or negative
    implications would accepting this have?
*   Do you have experience from other communities that relates to this
    issue and is important to consider?
*   How involved have you been in the LLVM project?  Frequent contributor,
    occasional contributor, user of LLVM libraries, user of LLVM-based tools,
    or other?
*   Self Evaluation: How much effort did you put into your review and how
    knowledgeable are you about this area? For example, a quick reading or an
    in-depth study?

In addition to your opinion and thoughts, please include any additional
framing that may be useful.

Thank you,

Chris Lattner
Review Manager



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200608/b25722c3/attachment-0001.html>

A part of the problem with “chiming in late” is that people don’t have time to
read everything, or even to continuously keep track of what’s going on.  I don’t
think that people in such position will want to be review managers and take on
moderating further discussion.  My guess is that they might be inclined to just
give up unless the proposal is straight up catastrophic.

On a different note..  On more than one occasion, there would be disagreements
regarding the interpretation of the official project policies.  In the specific
cases I remember they related to the downstream/out-of-tree projects.  Person A
would say “this affects OOT projects”, while person B would say “we should have
no concerns about what’s not in tree”.  What consequences do you see coming out
of resolving these controversies?  Would they be “precedents” for the purposes
of interpretation of policies?


--
Krzysztof Parzyszek  kparzysz at quicinc.com<mailto:kparzysz at
quicinc.com>   AI tools development

From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Chris
Lattner via llvm-dev
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 4:21 PM
To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] [PROPOSAL] Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve
contentious decisions

Thank you to Mehdi and Kit for their feedback on this thread so far - I’d really
love to hear from others in the community as well, even if it is a simple “+1
this sounds great” or “I’m concerned about XYZ specific aspect of this” or “-1,
LLVM has no problems making decisions” :-)

-Chris


On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:19 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at
nondot.org<mailto:clattner at nondot.org>> wrote:

Hi all,

Following up on the extensive discussions since January, many of us would like
to put in place a process to improve LLVM’s decision making process for
contentious issues.  I’ve put together a proposal for how this works, and am
recursively using it to get feedback on the process itself.  Thank you to the
many people who contributed great ideas and improvements during the pitch phases
and early drafts of the doc.

Because this is a weird case, I’m not setting up the standard review manager
team for this.  We’ll wing it, and if it doesn’t work out, we can try again.

-Chris

——

Hello LLVM community,

The review of "Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve contentious
decisions" begins now and runs through
June 12, 2020. The proposal is available
online<https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/master/proposals/LP0001-LLVMDecisionMaking.md>.

Feedback is an important part of the LLVM Proposal process. All review feedback
should be either on this forum thread or, if you would like to keep your
feedback
private, directly to one of the review managers.

**What goes into a review?**

The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through
constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of LLVM. When
writing your response, here are some questions you might want to answer in your
review:

*   What is your evaluation of the proposal?  What positive or negative
    implications would accepting this have?
*   Do you have experience from other communities that relates to this
    issue and is important to consider?
*   How involved have you been in the LLVM project?  Frequent contributor,
    occasional contributor, user of LLVM libraries, user of LLVM-based tools,
    or other?
*   Self Evaluation: How much effort did you put into your review and how
    knowledgeable are you about this area? For example, a quick reading or an
    in-depth study?

In addition to your opinion and thoughts, please include any additional
framing that may be useful.

Thank you,

Chris Lattner
Review Manager



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200608/4b8cf500/attachment.html>

I appreciate the emphasis on making sure the arguments are laid out clearly, and
that the process happens in the open.

The proposal says “A group of either 2 or 4 community members are selected”; the
document doesn’t really make it clear who selects them.  Reading it a few more
times, it sounds like the process is supposed to be “The person writing the
[PITCH] selects […]” (and then Chris can suggest adjustments)?  Is the person
writing the [PITCH] allowed to be a review manager?

I think some broader changes to the LLVM RFC process would make sense,
particular in terms of the evolution of LLVM IR.  But this seems like a
reasonable starting point for ensuring proposals don’t just grind to a halt
without any decision being made.

-Eli

From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Chris
Lattner via llvm-dev
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 2:21 PM
To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] [PROPOSAL] Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve
contentious decisions

Thank you to Mehdi and Kit for their feedback on this thread so far - I’d really
love to hear from others in the community as well, even if it is a simple “+1
this sounds great” or “I’m concerned about XYZ specific aspect of this” or “-1,
LLVM has no problems making decisions” :-)

-Chris


On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:19 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at
nondot.org<mailto:clattner at nondot.org>> wrote:

Hi all,

Following up on the extensive discussions since January, many of us would like
to put in place a process to improve LLVM’s decision making process for
contentious issues.  I’ve put together a proposal for how this works, and am
recursively using it to get feedback on the process itself.  Thank you to the
many people who contributed great ideas and improvements during the pitch phases
and early drafts of the doc.

Because this is a weird case, I’m not setting up the standard review manager
team for this.  We’ll wing it, and if it doesn’t work out, we can try again.

-Chris

——

Hello LLVM community,

The review of "Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve contentious
decisions" begins now and runs through
June 12, 2020. The proposal is available
online<https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/master/proposals/LP0001-LLVMDecisionMaking.md>.

Feedback is an important part of the LLVM Proposal process. All review feedback
should be either on this forum thread or, if you would like to keep your
feedback
private, directly to one of the review managers.

**What goes into a review?**

The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through
constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of LLVM. When
writing your response, here are some questions you might want to answer in your
review:

*   What is your evaluation of the proposal?  What positive or negative
    implications would accepting this have?
*   Do you have experience from other communities that relates to this
    issue and is important to consider?
*   How involved have you been in the LLVM project?  Frequent contributor,
    occasional contributor, user of LLVM libraries, user of LLVM-based tools,
    or other?
*   Self Evaluation: How much effort did you put into your review and how
    knowledgeable are you about this area? For example, a quick reading or an
    in-depth study?

In addition to your opinion and thoughts, please include any additional
framing that may be useful.

Thank you,

Chris Lattner
Review Manager



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200608/f7f7f1f3/attachment.html>

Chris,

   I am greatly in favor of having a process to elevate issues and settle
contentious arguments once and for all. Throughout my career, I often see
organizations get bogged down in arguments over the course of years, never
solving anything because nobody is able/willing to “have the final say.”

   An assorted list of thoughts and feedback items:


  *   2 weeks might be a bit short of a discussion period for major policy
changes. Many people go on vacation for that amount of time, and it would be
unfortunate to come back from vacation and find that some major decision went in
while you were out.
  *   I think a separate mailing list would be good for these. RFC’s should also
go into this new mailing list, so people who are too busy to follow
[whatever]-dev can at least keep up to date on the RFC’s mailing list. I think
that it would also be good to have all the subproject RFC’s in once place; more
than once I’ve seen an RFC get cross-posted to llvm-dev, then tried to reply and
got the “your message is being held for moderation” message because I’m not
subscribed to flang-dev (or whatever mailing list). This might also have the
side benefit of reducing noise on the subproject mailing lists if RFC’s are not
posted (or cross posted) there.
  *   Once the process is settled, it might be a good idea to settle some
contentious issues that have been argued on the mailing list recently. For
instance, the issue of bumping the CMake minimum bound and API stability have
been discussed on and off over the last 6 months, with no real resolution. I’m
sure there are others that I haven’t noticed.
  *   From the FAQ: “Should we improve the existing LLVM RFC processes?” I think
this would be a good idea. I think many RFC’s don’t really get discussed until
patches start landing, which is really frustrating. If there were a process
whereby RFC’s would be approved/denied, I think it would motivate people to pay
more attention to them.
  *   From reading the pitch, it sounds like the person drafting the pitch is
responsible for nominating the 2-4 review managers. Assuming I understand this
correctly, I think there are a few issues with this: 1) It might create a
conflict of interests. The person drafting the pitch obviously wants it to go
their way. They may attempt to (either unconsciously, or consciously), “stack
the panel” with people sympathetic to their cause. 2) Similar to how it can be
hard to pick code reviewers, it can be hard to know who to pick for the panel.
This issue is especially true for new contributors who don’t know all the major
players. It might be nice if there were an impartial third party responsible for
picking the panel.
  *   In a previous round, you posted a google doc instead of a static page in
github. I liked this because it allowed for inline comments to be posted and
addressed. I think this would be a better format for discussing specific
proposals than the mailing lists. If not a google doc (since it’s hard to do
versioning there), then perhaps as a phabricator diff, or github PR?

   Regardless, thanks for working on this issue!

Thank you,
   Christopher Tetreault


From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Chris
Lattner via llvm-dev
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 2:21 PM
To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] [PROPOSAL] Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve
contentious decisions

Thank you to Mehdi and Kit for their feedback on this thread so far - I’d really
love to hear from others in the community as well, even if it is a simple “+1
this sounds great” or “I’m concerned about XYZ specific aspect of this” or “-1,
LLVM has no problems making decisions” :-)

-Chris


On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:19 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at
nondot.org<mailto:clattner at nondot.org>> wrote:

Hi all,

Following up on the extensive discussions since January, many of us would like
to put in place a process to improve LLVM’s decision making process for
contentious issues.  I’ve put together a proposal for how this works, and am
recursively using it to get feedback on the process itself.  Thank you to the
many people who contributed great ideas and improvements during the pitch phases
and early drafts of the doc.

Because this is a weird case, I’m not setting up the standard review manager
team for this.  We’ll wing it, and if it doesn’t work out, we can try again.

-Chris

——

Hello LLVM community,

The review of "Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve contentious
decisions" begins now and runs through
June 12, 2020. The proposal is available
online<https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/master/proposals/LP0001-LLVMDecisionMaking.md>.

Feedback is an important part of the LLVM Proposal process. All review feedback
should be either on this forum thread or, if you would like to keep your
feedback
private, directly to one of the review managers.

**What goes into a review?**

The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through
constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of LLVM. When
writing your response, here are some questions you might want to answer in your
review:

*   What is your evaluation of the proposal?  What positive or negative
    implications would accepting this have?
*   Do you have experience from other communities that relates to this
    issue and is important to consider?
*   How involved have you been in the LLVM project?  Frequent contributor,
    occasional contributor, user of LLVM libraries, user of LLVM-based tools,
    or other?
*   Self Evaluation: How much effort did you put into your review and how
    knowledgeable are you about this area? For example, a quick reading or an
    in-depth study?

In addition to your opinion and thoughts, please include any additional
framing that may be useful.

Thank you,

Chris Lattner
Review Manager



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200609/e3013453/attachment.html>

Overall, +1 from me.

I have a few concerns about the detail, but adopting this with the 
attitude that we're expecting to iterate on the process itself seems 
like a step in the right direction.

I'll simply list my concerns as I think each of these has been expanded 
on down thread by others.

1) Length of review period - two weeks is too short.

2) Who selects review managers - I'd be fine with Chris having final 
call.  I also think concerns about selection can largely be handled on a 
case by case basis as part of review feedback.

3) I'd prefer llvm-dev over another mailing list for now.  We could 
switch later, but I don't see a strong reason to switch now.

4) I think it needs to be very clear that reviewers are only expected to 
have read the current proposal.  It should be the responsibility of 
author to summarize previous discussion.  I consider the "this was 
discussed in X old thread" an anti pattern for this type of discussion.

Philip


On 6/2/20 1:19 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Following up on the extensive discussions since January, many of us 
> would like to put in place a process to improve LLVM’s decision making 
> process for contentious issues.  I’ve put together a proposal for how 
> this works, and am recursively using it to get feedback on the process 
> itself.  Thank you to the many people who contributed great ideas and 
> improvements during the pitch phases and early drafts of the doc.
>
> Because this is a weird case, I’m not setting up the standard review 
> manager team for this.  We’ll wing it, and if it doesn’t work out, we 
> can try again.
>
> -Chris
>
> ——
>
> Hello LLVM community,
>
> The review of "Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve contentious 
> decisions" begins now and runs through
> June 12, 2020. The proposal is available online 
>
<https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/master/proposals/LP0001-LLVMDecisionMaking.md>.
>
> Feedback is an important part of the LLVM Proposal process. All review 
> feedback
> should be either on this forum thread or, if you would like to keep 
> your feedback
> private, directly to one of the review managers.
>
> **What goes into a review?**
>
> The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review 
> through
> constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of 
> LLVM. When
> writing your response, here are some questions you might want to 
> answer in your
> review:
>
> *   What is your evaluation of the proposal?  What positive or negative
>     implications would accepting this have?
> *   Do you have experience from other communities that relates to this
>     issue and is important to consider?
> *   How involved have you been in the LLVM project?  Frequent 
> contributor,
>     occasional contributor, user of LLVM libraries, user of LLVM-based 
> tools,
>     or other?
> *   Self Evaluation: How much effort did you put into your review and how
>     knowledgeable are you about this area? For example, a quick 
> reading or an
>     in-depth study?
>
> In addition to your opinion and thoughts, please include any additional
> framing that may be useful.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Chris Lattner
> Review Manager
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200610/33370cac/attachment.html>