> On Jul 6, 2020, at 10:32 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >>> The must/should terminology should probably be factored out once and referenced. As written, it takes a little effort to be sure the definitions are the same between the two uses. >> Iâm not sure what you mean here. Do you have a recommended approach? > Land yours, and if I still care, I'll send a patch. :) WFM! :) >>> As I mentioned before, I'd advocate for the notion of a sponsor (an existing LLVM contributor) for each incubator. I'd have that a must on the incubator list. >> Yes, this is a good idea. The problem here is âhow do we decide who qualifies as a sponsor?â. I donât know a good way to say that - someone with N years of LLVM experience, M patches, â¦? How does this get explained? > You said elsewhere that we could let this evolve with experience. I would take that sentiment, and apply it here. I'm really more concerned about the expectations of the role (i.e. some human familiar with LLVM norms willing to invest non-trivial time), than I am the details of who is eligible. > > Since I don't want this to be blocking item, why don't we land what you have and I can draft something as a patch? It seems like there's some general agreement about a potential issue and we just need to find a way to address it. > Sounds great. I think this is something we can handle qualitatively as a concern raised in the RFC stage based on the details of the proposal. The LLVM Developer Policy doesnât have to be a complete list of criteria, it just provides a general framework to set expectations. Thank you for the feedback Philip! -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200706/13008759/attachment.html>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4