As a diverse community, there are clearly different opinions on rules and guidelines of community operation, and it's not unusually that people agree to disagree. As PMC members, it's our responsibility to take actions to navigate the way the community operates, hearing voices from the community, keeping our technical decisions up-to-date to the latest challenges in industry, and that is exactly why we need this process RFC - Clarify the rules and guidelines of community operation.
> I think this paragraph misinterpret the role of the PMC, which is not to > "hear the voice of super majority". It says, instead, among other things: "to > further the long-term development and health of the community as a whole, and > to ensure that balanced and wide scale peer review and collaboration takes > place." ([source](https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works/#pmc)). Textual interpretation, just as @tqchen said, is usually subject to personal opinions. This is why we need a process RFC to clarify how decision making process could potentially incorporate community needs. This is how I interpret "community as a whole". > I think it is not welcoming and correct to say that there is this "super > majority" that crushes everyone else's opinion. At least this is not the way > I think it should be. I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying your opinion as a PMC member. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1668301895 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102/c1668301...@github.com>
