The community adopted the new governance model in October, and we’re now to the point where we’re getting ready to stand up the initial Area Teams.
An Area Team is responsible for meeting routinely to facilitate decision-making within their area of the project. This includes maintaining an up-to-date, comprehensive list of active maintainers, helping reach consensus on proposals, or mediating technical disagreements. This role is one of a steward and moderator ensuring the health and smooth operation of the area.
There are no skill or experience requirements to be on an Area Team, but you must be a member of the LLVM GitHub Organization, and either have a public email address on your GitHub profile or have made a commit to the LLVM project using a non-private email address. You may only serve on one area team at a time, service is for a one year term. Area Teams are expected to meet publicly twice a month, but meetings will be canceled if there are no items on the agenda (or to accommodate schedules, holidays, etc).
Infrastructure - Covering project-wide automation, build, bug tracking and other infrastructure.
Community - Covering community issues including moderation, collaboration and communication tools.
If you are interested in volunteering to be on an Area Team, please fill out this Google Form. The call for nominations will remain open until Thur Jan 23, with elections expected to start on Mon Jan 27.
I believe that these two efforts are complementary and we have written the proposal text in that direction (and even mention we want to build upon these existing models). My understanding is that the area teams will be used as escalation when conflicts cannot be resolved within the maintainers, and is orthogonal to how the maintainers are organized inside the project.
FWIW, I don’t think anyone has problems with multiple top-level maintainers; we already allow multiple maintainers for everything else, no reason we should not also allow it for the top-level IMO.
I think it’s a fair assessment. Basically, the community still runs RFCs like we always have, but an area team can help make progress when it’s not clear that an RFC has consensus or some help is needed in moving the RFC along. So it’s an escalation path and is orthogonal to maintainership.
Just a reminder to everyone that Area Team nominations are open!
Also, everyone who has been nominated so far should have received an email from me to confirm that you are accepting nomination: please check your email!
I’m also collecting brief introductions from each candidate to assemble a voter guide, which I will aim to publish on Friday January 24th.
Does this imply that you can only be a candidate for one team?
Because that’s what I assumed and so only chose one, maybe I was wrong about that (I’d fill it in again but that would need a different email address and that seems like a bad idea).
The intent was that you could be a candidate for more than one, but only serve on one at a time so that there are sufficient opportunities for other community members in leadership roles.
Shoot me an email with the changes you’d like to beanz AT llvm DOT org and I’ll update your nomination.
Reminder to everyone nominations close on Thursday January 23rd. I don’t believe we set a specific time, but assume that if it is Friday wherever you wake up it is probably too late!
… Unless you’re in Asia, where you probably have some padding…
I’m not sure the wording in the proposal supports your interpretation:
During the nomination period any voting contributor can nominate themselves or another voting contributor to run for any one area team. No individual can run for more than one area team in a single election. An individual nominated for more than one area team will be responsible for choosing which team they want to run for.
My interpretation is that an individual has to pick the area team they want to serve on during nomination period, and not after the voting.
I’ve also verified that our voting system doesn’t seem to have the ability to withdraw a candidate after the election begins, so this would be complicated to implement.
We only have a handful of nominations for individuals in multiple areas, I’ll work with those nominees to identify the correct ballot for each to appear on.
Some nominees are nominated for multiple teams. I’ll be reaching out to all of those nominees today for them to select which ballot they want to appear on.
LLVM
jdoerfert - Johannes Doerfert
ilovepi - Paul Kirth
jroelofs - Jon Roelofs
arsenm - Matt Arsenault
phyBrackets - Shivam Kunwar
fhahn - Florian Hahn
nikic - Nikita Popov
alinas - Alina Sbirlea
yashssh - Yashwant Singh
Clang
cor3ntin - Corentin Jabot
Endilll - Vlad Serebrennikov
AaronBallman - Aaron Ballman
shafik - Shafik Yaghmour
qiongsiwu - Qiongsi (Jon) Wu
erichkeane - Erich Keane
Xazax-hun - Gabor Horvath
hubert-reinterpretcast - Hubert Tong
tbaederr - Timm Bäder
vgvassilev - Vassil Vassilev
efriedma-quic - Eli Friedman
rnk - Reid Kleckner
MLIR
rengolin - Renato Golin
jpienaar - Jacques Pienaar
matthias-springer - Matthias Springer
javedabsar1 - Javed Absar
ftynse - Alex Zinenko
jeanPerier - Jean Perier
sherhut - Stephan Herhut
Infrastructure
lnihlen - Lucile Rose Nihlen
tru - Tobias Hieta
tstellar - Tom Stellard
boomanaiden154 - Aiden Grossman
petrhosek - Petr Hosek
dwblaikie - David Blaikie
DavidSpickett - David Spickett
asl - Anton Korobeynikov
Other Nominations
One nomination was for an ineligible individual who did not provide proof of eligibility when contacted. One nomination was rescinded.