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

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

Hey,


My 2 cents on this pitch is that I'm +1. In particular, while there are
always unknown about how it'll work in practice and I am curious about what
will / will not be using this process (the very first pitch mentioned "this
proposal focuses on non-technical decisions"), this proposal is addressing
a pain point of the community process.
The process also does not need to be perfect to be an improvement over the
status quo, and in the LLVM tradition: it can be incrementally improved as
we learn.

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:05 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
I missed that this was changed, I was excited about a Discourse category
for this! In particular the second point of the doc points at llvm-dev@
being a problem as the current forum for such discussions.
If Discourse is a no-go (?), then having a separate mailing-list would seem
better to me: if only for archiving/searching/tracking such discussions
(but Discourse is much better that the mailing-list archives anyway).

-- 
Mehdi


>
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200602/c8e3cdb1/attachment.html>

On Jun 2, 2020, at 9:54 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>
wrote:
> This was a mistake, fixed.
> 
> I missed that this was changed, I was excited about a Discourse category
for this! In particular the second point of the doc points at llvm-dev@ being a
problem as the current forum for such discussions.
> If Discourse is a no-go (?), then having a separate mailing-list would seem
better to me: if only for archiving/searching/tracking such discussions (but
Discourse is much better that the mailing-list archives anyway).
Hi Mehdi,

I’m personally also in favor of using Discourse in general, but we as a
community haven't converged on that decision.  Until a decision is made on
that (likely using this process) I think we should stick with llvm-dev as it is
the defacto place to have discussions, even given all of the problems it has.

-Chris