+1 to Renato's response here. I had the same thought, and Renato
phrased it much better than I'd have managed.
Philip
On 10/5/21 9:47 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote:
On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 17:06, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev
<llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
- Any other information that you think will help the Board of
Directors make the best decision.
- Foundation Board will have 30 days to make a final decision
about using GitHub Pull Requests and then communicate a migration
plan to the community.
Hi Tom,
Please help me here, I think I'm severely misunderstanding what this
means...
I'm reading it that the "Board of Directors" will make a decision and
communicate to the community, apparently through some undisclosed
internal process.
For example:
* What about people that are on holidays during the 30 days comment
period?
* What if the points are not made clear after 30 days?
* How do we know the IWG will correctly summarise the comments to the
board?
* How does the board guarantee it will take all facts in
consideration without bias?
* What kind of recourse would the community have if the decision
alienates a large part of the developers?
Please understand that I'm not assuming malice *at all*. We're all
humans, and in the effort to make some change happen we quite often
let unconscious bias be the merits of our decisions.
For context...
Since its inception[1], the foundation has always steered away from
technical decisions, always referring to the llvm-dev list for those.
Previous long running contentious issues (Github, monorepo, CoC) were
all decided by the community, in the llvm-dev list, and executed by
the foundation.
Recent discussions about the mailing list, irc, discord, discourse
have emphasised that, even with an infrastructure working group, the
views of the community are still too hard to predict and make it work
for the majority. Neither the board of directors, nor the IWG are wide
and diverse enough to make decisions that take most people's views
into consideration. That is why we still rely on the dev list for
large technical discussions and decisions.
Code review and bug tracking are very much technical decisions. Not
code directly, but how we all work. And there are a lot of us. Giving
feedback and having no insight into the decision making process will
certainly divide the community even more, if we're forced to accept
whatever outcome.
I can't see how this "solves" the problem of never-ending discussions,
other than further fragmenting the community.
cheers,
--renato
[1] http://blog.llvm.org/2014/04/the-llvm-foundation.html
<http://blog.llvm.org/2014/04/the-llvm-foundation.html>
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-...@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
