It is clear from current conversations and past conversations that there are different opinions on how we should operate as a community.
These include what we should prioritize (e.g., “prioritize evolving our existing components, e.g., IR”), how we evolve core components, and how to “ensure long-term development and health of the community as a whole.” It is also clear there are different interpretations of the same text; for example, some opinions about what approach qualifies as “ensure long-term development” or “evolving existing core components.” This proposal comes with the observation that there is no single, dogmatic way or interpretation to approach all situations. There are many ways a project can be successful. There should be holistic consideration from a technical perspective, the current state of the AI/ML ecosystem, and the demand from the community. This RFC do not suggest a specific path, or interpretation of the how. Unfortunately, some of the hows, or interpretation of hows, are exclusive to each other when it comes down to the operational process. By stagnating, we are implicitly taking a path that is favored by some, but dismiss the opinions of others, sometimes the majority of the community. It shall be the decision of the community collectively to choose the how(and path) to take after conversations. That means each one of us should do our best to convey our idea of how (technical strategies with concrete technical reasonings, approach of supporting emerging needs, approach to maintain existing code) to the community. The community collectively chooses. We would anticipate everyone to put the factors (such as long-term development, evolving our existing components, community growth, the need of stability on some modules) into consideration. Of course everyone would have their own interpretation of how these goals boils down to a concrete decision. In short, this is a question of process for the community to collectively make decisions on how (and implicitly their interpretation to some extent), and that is what this RFC is about. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1667768443 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102/c1667768...@github.com>
