First I want to apologize for not providing more regular updates and keeping this topic fresh on people’s minds. We are still chugging away on it! I have a few updates I want to share, and I want to bring this back up to the front of people’s mind.
Proposal Updates
I posted an update to the proposal a couple weeks ago which incorporated feedback that we’ve been working through. This came mostly from the EuroLLVM roundtable that @rnk led. The main highlights are:
Scalable sizes for area teams between 3 and 9.
A reduced number of areas to start with (LLVM, Clang, MLIR, Infrastructure, Community)
A clear and simple process for creating new area teams so that the right formation of teams becomes the Project Council’s responsibility.
A bit of prescription about regular team meetings, but allowing flexibility for cancelling.
The goal of these changes is to reduce the number of volunteers required to get this up and going, and to make it easier to try something, see how it works, and evolve over time.
Next Steps
With the updates above, we really feel like we’re ready to move into the next phase with the proposal.
We’ve selected a list of review managers that we think are leaders in the LLVM community who have participated in this conversation, and can represent the many perspectives that have been expressed so far, and help bring forward new feedback and ideas. These review managers are @dblaikie, @cishida, @ldionne, and @tstellar. If you haven’t felt comfortable expressing your perspective publicly, you are encouraged to reach out to the review managers privately to share your thoughts as well.
After we merge the PR, the review managers and authors will work to solicit one more round of reviews via a thread on Discourse, and we’ll work through any additional feedback we collect before convening a meeting of the review managers and Chris to discuss the proposal.
Thank you for putting this together and driving this forward @beanz.
Most of my questions are around structuring and formalizing this:
You’ve structured this proposal as an LP-0004 which means we should run it, is that still your goal at this point, or do you want to commit it into the archive and move on?
Your proposal is effectively a revision to LP-0001. How about we include a PR to /update/ that proposal (instead of keeping it stale and misleading) as well as this proposal? We can have the new draft of 0001 link back to the previous draft (in github) for archival/reference purposes, but if we’re updating the existing processes, it would be good to update them.
How would you like to roll this out? Is there a beta or trial set of issues that would be run through this? When would the first elections be?
Can we instead update LP-0001 to say that it’s superseded by LP-0004 somewhere at the top, keeping LP-0001 intact otherwise? I think it would be surprising if LP-0001 would suddenly mean something else after years it’s been published.
Sorry for the delayed response. Too many things going on at the same time…
My thought had been to run this as a proposal. I’ve posted an update thread with a brief summary, and proposal for how we could roll this out. I’d like to see if we get additional feedback to incorporate, and follow the proposal process through to a decision.
I’ve posted a draft PR that proposes the updates to 0001:
I’ve proposed answers to these questions in the update post. I’d like to aim for elections in January 2025. That gives us time to discuss and work out any problems with voter registration and conducting an election.
The latest draft of the proposal has reduced the number of initial teams to a smaller set with the intent that once formed a project council can form additional teams to meet community needs.
The big outstanding question to me is whether or not we have community consensus to try this approach or if we have additional changes required to the proposal to reach consensus. Let’s see what happens in the update thread.