Channeling /just my personal opinion/ as someone who cares a lot about LLVM: “we’re willing to wait”. LLVM is >20 years old and I fully intend it to survive another 20+ years: we’re not in a hurry to “claim success” here. It is better to get something later-but-good than something sooner-but-wrong.
ML is a rapidly evolving field and if you need a year or two to get to something that the broader community as a whole can adopt, then that is far better than prematurely trying to standardize on one particular vendor’s prior investment that they are trying to ensconce as a standard. Trying to use LLVM as the torchbearer is something that I’ve seen attempted several times before across the vast story arc of the project, and it has always been best to anchor on what serves a wide variety of stakeholders (or decline to participate until things settle out more).
-Chris