You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@tvm.apache.org by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org> on 2023/08/03 16:19:13 UTC
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen opened a new pull request, #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
tqchen opened a new pull request, #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102
(no comment)
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] leandron commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "leandron (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
leandron commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1287047657
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make the following strategic decisions in the TVM community:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
```suggestion
- Establishment of a new module in a new development branch or an optional module.
```
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
Review Comment:
```suggestion
We propose the following strategy decision process:
```
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make the following strategic decisions in the TVM community:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
Review Comment:
I suggest this point to be removed, given in this aspect TVM is different from Hadoop (where this line was taken from), which releases many separate components e.g. HDFS, HBase etc.
In our case, "adopting a new codebase" would mean replacing the whole repository. In case I misunderstood, can you please make this point more specific to what is meant by "alternative codebase" in TVM?
```suggestion
```
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
Review Comment:
```suggestion
One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes such as (please expand).
```
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Review Comment:
```suggestion
- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Establish a Community Strategy Decision Process
```
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
Review Comment:
```suggestion
We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes such as (please describe), but this has proven to be less successful due to (please expand)
```
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make the following strategic decisions in the TVM community:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
+ If such a vote fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This also covers the creation of new sub-projects within the project.
+
+All these decisions are made after community conversations that get captured as part of the summary.
Review Comment:
```suggestion
All these decisions are made after community conversations that get captured as part of the summary, in the form of one or more RFCs.
```
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make the following strategic decisions in the TVM community:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
Review Comment:
```suggestion
- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution in the form of the deprecation of existing components or the introduction of breaking changes
```
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1283451278
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring more verbose processes in a less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes Lazy 2/3 majority of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
+ If such a vote fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This also covers the creation of new sub-projects within the project.
+
+All these decisions are made after community conversations that get captured as part of the summary.
Review Comment:
I think a rule of thumb is discussion captures most perspective, But again we want to be simple here and leave that to the PMC and the community, so not to add a lot of word here, this is a guideline
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] Hzfengsy merged pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "Hzfengsy (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
Hzfengsy merged PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] junrushao commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "junrushao (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
junrushao commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1666041650
I was a bit confused, and would love to clarify my points first, and ask @leandron to clarify some of your points :-)
> It might become too costly for some to keep up with gigantic puzzle of features that are just too complicated to make work.
To clarify, according to my read, this RFC is particularly designed to be **extremely conservative** that a decision making should get **super majority (2/3)** of the votes to pass. It means the will of a single person or identity is insufficient to push forward anything unless they convince most of the community members.
Intuitively, if a super majority of the community firmly believe in a progress to be made via formal voting, I would agree that this is a technical direction that the community believes in and should invest in.
Of course, upon any single commit of any code change, there will be less active contributors feeling left behind, and we do need to care about those contributors even if a super majority think the contrary. Therefore, I would propose to attach a guideline: any legacy code path, if conflicts with a new direction, it has to be preserved in a separate branch. To be clear, there is no case yet that a decision introduces incompatibility against the existing ones, but as PMC members, I should give **sufficient emotional support** to those who could not catch up.
> On the flip side, many see value in having a stable architecture with a set of components we can evolve long term in a coherent way, that would require us to be mindful when bringing new alternatives to solutions we already have on the stack
I share the same sentiment with you that I wish some of my softwares never got updated, for example, LLVM breaks upon almost every release, and Cython just breaks recently which is a huge headache. Stability is indeed an important issue to me, and therefore, if a “stable architecture” already copes with new technologies out of box, I would personally prefer not to upgrade, just to save my own time.
Meanwhile, as a PMC member, I would take responsibility to a) hear the voice of super majority, and b) make concrete progress to keep the software updated to the latest challenge, which further becomes neither my personal will, nor stability concern wishing for zero change or zero break, but a grave concern on a) community stagnation; b) being out of touch from major usecases.
> I understand the fact a subset of the community wants to bring changes faster into the TVM stack for the benefit of "a field in fast development" or to attract more contributors, etc.
I apologize in advance if I misread as a non-native speaker, but correct me if I was wrong, as a PMC member just like you, I was slightly surprised about your wording on this particular scenario. Given the context that this is an extremely conservative proposal that requires super majority to push forward any technical decision, I would love to have you re-examine the following assumption:
- A super majority is described as "a subset of the community". Do you want to clarify if it's you believe super majority is representative in your reasoning?
- The motivation of having new features, as you described, is to "attract more contributors" instead of merely coping with latest needs in the field. Do you want to clarify if you believe there is any need to cope with latest needs?
To summarize, @leandron, do you agree with me that we value community over code? I'm really grateful to have such a helpful and collaborative super majority of the community, and we concrete deliver for them all the time, making our solution as fast, robust and easy-to-use, solving community problems at large scale.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] junrushao commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "junrushao (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
junrushao commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1668301895
As a diverse community, there are clearly different opinions on rules and guidelines of community operation, and it's not unusually that people agree to disagree. As PMC members, it's our responsibility to take actions to navigate the way the community operates, hearing voices from the community, keeping our technical decisions up-to-date to the latest challenges in industry, and that is exactly why we need this process RFC - Clarify the rules and guidelines of community operation.
> I think this paragraph misinterpret the role of the PMC, which is not to "hear the voice of super majority". It says, instead, among other things: "to further the long-term development and health of the community as a whole, and to ensure that balanced and wide scale peer review and collaboration takes place." ([source](https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works/#pmc)).
Textual interpretation, just as @tqchen said, is usually subject to personal opinions. This is why we need a process RFC to clarify how decision making process could potentially incorporate community needs. This is how I interpret "community as a whole".
> I think it is not welcoming and correct to say that there is this "super majority" that crushes everyone else's opinion. At least this is not the way I think it should be.
I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying your opinion as a PMC member.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1284425969
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
+ If such a vote fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This also covers the creation of new sub-projects within the project.
Review Comment:
This is the same language copied from existing ASF communities, e.g. hadoop
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] Johnson9009 commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "Johnson9009 (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
Johnson9009 commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1287834894
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make the following strategic decisions in the TVM community:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
+ If such a vote fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This also covers the creation of new sub-projects within the project.
+
+All these decisions are made after community conversations that get captured as part of the summary.
Review Comment:
Everybody like RFC, so do I, because we can know the details of the design, everybody hate RFC when his changes is very obvious or clear, so do I. Instead of a beautiful RFC and slow implement, I perfer a workable code.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1285827223
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
I think it is up to @Hzfengsy to decide what to do with the other RFC. (addressing your question on what to do with existing RFC).
I would remark that this reply is not taking the either the options that you listed, which contains specific operational ways of how. Instead it addresses the two action items:
- The other RFC: leave it up to @Hzfengsy , however i don't think any action needs to be taken until we conclude either one of the two.
- This RFC, I do not intend to expand on the particular item, as being stated, the goal is to is to come up with simple, less verbose process that everyone understand, as verbatim it is quite clear I think to many community members.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1673402199
Thank you everyone for your inputs so far. We have had many related conversations over the past year and get collective inputs on different views to approach this process. Based on the inputs so far over the past year, I opened a vote to bring forward the version that most in the discussion thread prefers so we can bring clarity to this process.
https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/15521
Thank you
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] junrushao commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "junrushao (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
junrushao commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1664927665
I'm in favor of this. A healthy community needs progress and keep updated to the latest trend, and a super majority vote is for now the best way we could think of to balance the need for stability while being against stagnation
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1284429282
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Review Comment:
Thank you for your input
ASF requires consensus on code contributions, but the case of long term strategy and overall items like subproject established is left unspecified for per project, that is the reason why there is related approaches like hadoop or other community.
But I appreciate that some may have a different view, and that is a process issue(e.g. how the community operate), and is being decided procedurally by each ASF community.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1284532026
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
+ If such a vote fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This also covers the creation of new sub-projects within the project.
Review Comment:
I removed the terminology including, and points to the specific itemized list
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1287446998
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make the following strategic decisions in the TVM community:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
Thank you for the suggestion. There are two possible ways we can go with here here.
- W0: a more restricted form, aka only new development branch or an optional modules.
- W1: While the original intention of strategic decisions that relates to any new module, period, including the core ones.
I understand that you would like to go with W0, while others would like to have W1. Given both W0 and W1 are related to how we operate, and they are exclusive to each other, after reviewing your inputs and others, I plan to keep the text as it is for now. I would mention your opinion, however, in the overall summary. You are also more than welcome to followup with these points in the community.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] leandron commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "leandron (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
leandron commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1667516671
> The RFC is about how we operate as a community, and it's not necessarily related to "gigantic puzzle of features". To clarify, according to my read, this RFC is particularly designed to be extremely conservative that a decision making should get super majority (2/3) of the votes to pass. It means the will of a single person or identity is insufficient to push forward anything unless they convince most of the community members.
>
> As a community of diverse needs, of course, we have different opinions on how we could drive our technical needs, which is a process issue of any community operation. If a super majority of the community firmly believe in one approach of how, I would agree and support it no matter what I personally believe in. The RFC is just about that the community needs a way to drive technical resolution.
I wasn't aware of these motivations, I think they should be stated in the RFC text.
> I share the same sentiment with you that I wish some of my softwares never got updated, for example, LLVM breaks upon almost every release, and Cython just breaks recently which is a huge headache (and meanwhile, they constantly bring in coolest new features!). Stability is indeed an important issue to me, and therefore, if a “stable architecture” already copes with new challenges out of box, I would personally prefer not to upgrade, just to save my own time.
We are getting confused with the difference between a stable architecture (components that interact with each other), with API, which is the specific function calls and classes design to make something work. What I'm arguing is that we should prioritise evolving our existing components e.g. IRs, rather than come up with something new every couple years.
Cython and LLVM are great software with mature communities, being used in many production cases and - I'd argue - very stable.
This is probably one of the reason their contribution guides are clear w.r.t changes, for example Cython mention the development larger features in branches before they get into the main codebase ([source](https://github.com/cython/cython/wiki/HackerGuide#feature-branches)) and LLVM has this note in their development guide: **"we need to strike a balance between being inclusive of new ideas and people and the cost of ongoing maintenance that new code requires. As such, we have a general support policy for introducing major new components into the LLVM world, depending on the degree of detail and responsibility required. Core projects need a higher degree of scrutiny than peripheral projects, and the latter may have additional differences."**
So, if said projects keeping control of their architectures break sometimes, imagine for project that are less careful with that, how would that be?
> Meanwhile, as a PMC member, I would take **PMC responsibility** to a) hear the voice of super majority, and b) make concrete progress to keep the software updated to the latest challenge, which further becomes neither my personal will, nor stability concern wishing for zero change or zero break, but grave concern accordingly on a) community stagnation; b) being out of touch from major usecases.
I this this paragraph misinterpret the role of the PMC, which is not to "hear the voice of super majority". It says, instead, among other things: "to further the long-term development and health of the community as a whole, and to ensure that balanced and wide scale peer review and collaboration takes place." ([source](https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works/#pmc)).
I think it is not welcoming and correct to say that there is this "super majority" that crushes everyone else's opinion. At least this is not the way I think it should be.
> > I understand the fact a subset of the community wants to bring changes faster into the TVM stack for the benefit of "a field in fast development" or to attract more contributors, etc.
>
> I apologize in advance if I misread as a non-native speaker, but correct me if I was wrong, as a PMC member just like you, I was slightly surprised about your wording on this particular scenario. Given the context that this is an extremely conservative proposal that requires super majority to push forward any technical decision, I would love to have you re-examine the following assumption:
>
> * A super majority is described as "a subset of the community". Do you want to clarify if it's you believe super majority is representative in your reasoning?
A "subset" is exactly what it is.
> * The motivation of having new features, as you described, is to "attract more contributors" instead of merely coping with latest needs in the field. Do you want to clarify if you believe there is any need to cope with latest needs?
Sorry, I'm not aware of statistics in this area. I'm just representing a view I took from previous numerous discussions around this topic, that I referred in my previous post.
> To summarize, @leandron, do you agree with me that we value community over code? I'm really grateful to have such a helpful and collaborative super majority of the community, and we concrete deliver for them all the time, making our solution as fast, robust and easy-to-use, solving community problems at large scale.
This text is already off-topic by a lot, so I suggest rather than posting passive-aggressive questions such as whether long term contributors of this project agree with "community over code", we focus on clarifying the RFC text, so that the community understands what is it that we're changing once this goes to vote.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1287446998
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make the following strategic decisions in the TVM community:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
Thank you for the suggestion. There are two possible ways we can go with here here.
- W0: a more restricted form, aka only new development branch or an optional modules.
- W1: While the original intention of strategic decisions that relates to any new module, period, including the core ones.
I understand that you would like to go with W0. Given both W0 and W1 are related to how we operate, and they are exclusive to each other, after reviewing your inputs and others, I plan to keep the text as it is for now. I would mention your opinion, however, in the overall summary. You are also more than welcome to followup with these points in the community.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1287452021
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make the following strategic decisions in the TVM community:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
Review Comment:
I do not think this refer to any of the components, but just the codebase of that the project develops on. As verbatim it is very is clear, an alternative codebase of the product.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] psrivas2 commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "psrivas2 (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
psrivas2 commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1673178046
+1
I support this proposal. We need to be agile to be competitive in this fast moving space of AI / ML ecosystem, while at the same time ensure we are building robust, stable software architecture. 2/3rd majority strikes the right balance between those two options.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1287452021
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make the following strategic decisions in the TVM community:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
Review Comment:
I do not think this refer to any of the components, but just the codebase of that the project product develops on. As verbatim it is very is clear, an alternative codebase of the product.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] junrushao commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "junrushao (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
junrushao commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1283443691
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring more verbose processes in a less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes Lazy 2/3 majority of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
Review Comment:
I think it’s called “super majority” technically
```suggestion
It takes lazy 2/3 super majority of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
```
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring more verbose processes in a less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes Lazy 2/3 majority of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
Review Comment:
I think it’s called “super majority” technically
```suggestion
It takes lazy 2/3 super majority of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
```
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] csullivan commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "csullivan (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
csullivan commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1283439824
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring more verbose processes in a less successful.
Review Comment:
```suggestion
We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
```
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring more verbose processes in a less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes Lazy 2/3 majority of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
Review Comment:
I had to look up Lazy majority and found Apache Hive has a nice table describing various forms of reaching approval. I appreciate TVM's consideration of incorporating both Lazy majority and 2/3 majority. By Lazy majority are we defining it as,
>Lazy Majority | A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 votes that -1 votes.
Perhaps it would be good to include that definition.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] junrushao commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "junrushao (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
junrushao commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1283449718
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring more verbose processes in a less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes Lazy 2/3 majority of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
+ If such a vote fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This also covers the creation of new sub-projects within the project.
+
+All these decisions are made after community conversations that get captured as part of the summary.
Review Comment:
Is there a guideline on a hard limit on how long the discussion should continue before voting? Forcing a vote after sufficient discussion should be a legit option to come to a conclusion
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] hsaputra commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "hsaputra (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
hsaputra commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1671884167
> We are getting confused with the difference between a stable architecture (components that interact with each other), with API, which is the specific function calls and classes design to make something work. What I'm arguing is that we should prioritise evolving our existing components e.g. IRs, rather than come up with something new every couple years.
>
> Cython and LLVM are great software with mature communities, being used in many production cases and - I'd argue - very stable.
I do Not think "we" are confused. Coming up with something new every couple of years actually should be happening for open source projects. API stability is another dimensions of evolution and progression that we could manage via versioning and release management.
I would not recommend to compare Apache TVM, or ASF, with other OSS projects and ecosystem. They are different and we will never try to operate and follow other communities on how to operate.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] YuchenJin commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "YuchenJin (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
YuchenJin commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1670707945
I fully support this RFC to require a 2/3 majority to make strategic decisions in TVM.
I'm in favor of the RFC text as it is now. It's clear and concise, while precise and effective.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1693509875
Link to the voting result thread
https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/15618
https://lists.apache.org/thread/bd0ph9j98r6sjm3wtp9174zgqqfhskt6
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] leandron commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "leandron (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
leandron commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1285894161
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
I don't think the community benefits of intentionally having unwritten "less verbose" processes, but I understand from the message above that there is no intention of making the current text more clear, which is part defats the purpose of having an RFC process at all.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] leandron commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "leandron (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
leandron commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1284478876
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
+ If such a vote fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This also covers the creation of new sub-projects within the project.
Review Comment:
Sorry to disagree but this is not the same as Hadoop (at least not the one I'm seeing at https://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html), given they have a specific list of topics including which type of decision making applies to each of them.
The text I'm reading in the proposed RFC rather open ended and can be used to justify any change.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] leandron commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "leandron (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
leandron commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1284478876
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
+ If such a vote fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This also covers the creation of new sub-projects within the project.
Review Comment:
Sorry to disagree but this is not the same as Hadoop (at least not the one I'm seeing at https://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html), given they have a specific list of topics including which type of decision making applies to each of them.
The text I'm reading in the proposed RFC is rather open ended and can be used to justify any change.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] leandron commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "leandron (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
leandron commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1285639373
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
+ If such a vote fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This also covers the creation of new sub-projects within the project.
Review Comment:
Thanks
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] Johnson9009 commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "Johnson9009 (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
Johnson9009 commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1664847392
+1
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] sunggg commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "sunggg (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
sunggg commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1671695963
+1 given the fast moving nature of this space, I'm in favor of this change and I believe this will allow us adapt fast. Current RFC text seems clear to me.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1287446998
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make the following strategic decisions in the TVM community:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
Thank you for the suggestion. There are two possible ways we can go with here here.
I understand that you would like to propose:
- W0: a more restricted form, aka only new development branch or an optional modules.
- W1: While the original intention of strategic decisions that relates to any new module, period, including the core ones,
Given both W0 and W1 are related to how we operate, and they are exclusive to each other, after reviewing your inputs and others, I plan to keep the text as it is for now. I would mention your opinion, however, in the overall summary. You are also more than welcome to followup with these points in the community.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1287624627
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make the following strategic decisions in the TVM community:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
+ If such a vote fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This also covers the creation of new sub-projects within the project.
+
+All these decisions are made after community conversations that get captured as part of the summary.
Review Comment:
Thank you for your input. There are two possible ways to view how we want to approach things:
- W0: There needs to be extra RFCs as being requested in the text.
- W1: The discussion already cover the information needed, and the decision process provide an resolution in a simple and clear fashion that is understood by community members, in that case no RFC is necessary.
I understand that the request is W0. Given both W0 and W1 are related to how we operate, and they are exclusive to each other, after reviewing your inputs and others, I plan to keep the text in the form W1 for now and see whether community prefer the other one
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] sequoiar commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "sequoiar (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
sequoiar commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1676636523
+1
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] Hzfengsy commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "Hzfengsy (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
Hzfengsy commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1666500814
+1
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1283451278
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring more verbose processes in a less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes Lazy 2/3 majority of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
+ If such a vote fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This also covers the creation of new sub-projects within the project.
+
+All these decisions are made after community conversations that get captured as part of the summary.
Review Comment:
I think a rule of thumb is no new information in terms of opinion being presented, But again we want to be simple here and leave that to the PMC and the community
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] csullivan commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "csullivan (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
csullivan commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1668465535
Hi @leandron! Would you kindly consider posting the text changes you would like to see in order for you to lift your changes requested? This may help keep discussions concise as well as help others in the community understand your desires most directly.
If convenient to you, it could help discussion for these to be submitted as code changes suggestions in the github review. Reading from the document changes your propose would be helpful to avoid inflation of discussion on irrelevant topics that can frequently happen in committee and discussion threads.
Thanks for considering
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1287452021
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make the following strategic decisions in the TVM community:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
Review Comment:
Thank you for your inputs, particular terminology have nothing to do with any of the components, but just the codebase of that the project product develops on. As verbatim it is very is clear, an alternative codebase of the product.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] leandron commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "leandron (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
leandron commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1284351448
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
Review Comment:
Can this line be expanded with what specific processes this refers to and why they were *proven* to be less successful?
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
Review Comment:
Can you clarify which evidence we have to support this statement?
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
+ If such a vote fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This also covers the creation of new sub-projects within the project.
Review Comment:
It would be good, as we will be eventually voting on this RFC, that the proposal becomes more specific on what it is talking about. The current text is a bit vague on what the 2/3 votes majority applies to.
I'm particularly concerned about the terminology "including:", as it seems too open ended. I suggest coming up with a specific list of well defined items that 2/3 votes apply.
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Review Comment:
I think the title is a bit unclear as this RFC is not "clarifying" the voting process. It is, in practice, changing from the process we currently follow from Apache that requires consensus for any technical contribution, moving into a 2/3 majority for an open ended list of topics, so perhaps the word "Clarify" should be removed from this title.
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
Establishment of new modules in the project is the main subject of the very detailed (ongoing) RFC https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/95, so I'm wondering what's the strategy here.
Do we want to close that RFC as rejected and expand this one, or remove this point from here and continue the discussion on https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/95?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1284528692
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
+- Adoption of a new codebase: When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase.
+ If such a vote fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This also covers the creation of new sub-projects within the project.
Review Comment:
this particular item comes from part of hadoop note
```
Adoption of New Codebase
When the codebase for an existing, released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase. If such a vote fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue.
This also covers the creation of new sub-projects within the project
Lazy 2/3 majority of PMC members
```
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1667768443
It is clear from current conversations and past conversations that there are different opinions on how we should operate as a community.
These include what we should prioritize (e.g., “prioritize evolving our existing components, e.g., IR”), how we evolve core components, and how to “ensure long-term development and health of the community as a whole.”
It is also clear there are different interpretations of the same text; for example, some opinions about what approach qualifies as “ensure long-term development” or “evolving existing core components.”
This proposal comes with the observation that there is no single, dogmatic way or interpretation to approach all situations. There are many ways a project can be successful. There should be holistic consideration from a technical perspective, the current state of the AI/ML ecosystem, and the demand from the community. This RFC do not suggest a specific path, or interpretation of the how.
Unfortunately, some of the hows, or interpretation of hows, are exclusive to each other when it comes down to the operational process. By stagnating, we are implicitly taking a path that is favored by some, but dismiss the opinions of others, sometimes the majority of the community.
It shall be the decision of the community collectively to choose the how(and path) to take after conversations. That means each one of us should do our best to convey our idea of how (technical strategies with concrete technical reasonings, approach of supporting emerging needs, approach to maintain existing code) to the community. The community collectively chooses.
We would anticipate everyone to put the factors (such as long-term development, evolving our existing components, community growth, the need of stability on some modules) into consideration. Of course everyone would have their own interpretation of how these goals boils down to a concrete decision.
In short, this is a question of process for the community to collectively make decisions on how (and implicitly their interpretation to some extent), and that is what this RFC is about.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] yongwww commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "yongwww (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
yongwww commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1668362158
+1! I really like this proposal! The ability to move fast is crucial in adapting to the ever-evolving AI infra. I like the concept of lazy majority of binding decisions, it could facilitate the decision-making process and make sense to me.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] mbaret commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "mbaret (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
mbaret commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1674529045
+1
I think this is a substantially improved proposal compared with the similar RFC from last year, being more concise and using a 2/3rds majority which feels appropriate.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] hsaputra commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "hsaputra (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
hsaputra commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1671877854
+1 for this proposal
This will allow the project and community to move fast given the nature of the space that the project is in.
Very clear description on what the expectation from the community and the project.
NOTE: I saw a comment about having "value in having a stable architecture with a set of components", this is can be achieve via Git management and releases. We should NOT block progress for OSS projects as if they are internal enterprise based projects that need permissions on some VPs or business leaders to make decisions.
Reminder that PMC IS the leadership of any ASF Top Level Projects. So member of PMC needs to be able to balance and switch hats as they are contributing to the success of the project.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1283458093
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring more verbose processes in a less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes Lazy 2/3 majority of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
Review Comment:
Great pt, added to the description
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1287637923
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make the following strategic decisions in the TVM community:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
Review Comment:
I am not sure I get it. strategy do not necessarily entail deprecation or breaking changes :) and i guess different people have different interpretation of breaking changes
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1285827223
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
I think it is up to @Hzfengsy to decide what to do with the other RFC. (addressing your question on what to do with existing RFC).
I would remark that this reply is not taking the either the options that you listed, which implies specific operational ways of how. Instead it addresses the possible action items (that covers the questions you ask):
- "close the other RFC": leave it up to @Hzfengsy , however i don't think any action needs to be taken until we conclude either one of the two.
- "expand this one or remove this point": as being stated, the goal is to is to come up with simple, less verbose process that everyone understand, as verbatim it is quite clear I think to many community members.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1285827223
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
I think it is up to @Hzfengsy to decide what to do with the other RFC. (addressing your question on what to do with existing RFC).
I would remark that this reply is not taking the either the options that you listed, which contains specific operational ways of how. Instead it addresses the two action items (that covers the questions you ask):
- The other RFC: leave it up to @Hzfengsy , however i don't think any action needs to be taken until we conclude either one of the two.
- This RFC, I do not intend to expand on the particular item, as being stated, the goal is to is to come up with simple, less verbose process that everyone understand, as verbatim it is quite clear I think to many community members.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1285827223
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
I think it is up to @Hzfengsy to decide what to do with the other RFC. (addressing your question on what to do with existing RFC).
I would remark that this reply is not taking the either the options that you listed, which contains specific operational ways of how. Instead it addresses the two action items (that covers the questions you ask):
- The other RFC: leave it up to @Hzfengsy , however i don't think any action needs to be taken until we conclude either one of the two.
- "Expanding on this RFC text pt" as being stated, the goal is to is to come up with simple, less verbose process that everyone understand, as verbatim it is quite clear I think to many community members.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] leandron commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "leandron (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
leandron commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1287358516
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
Review Comment:
Closing this as it is covered in the last review as code changes.
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Review Comment:
Closing this as it is covered in the last review as code changes.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] leandron commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "leandron (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
leandron commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1285638873
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
Sorry, this response is not addressing the question.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1285927877
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
Thank you for your inputs. The purpose of the RFC is indeed to collect the inputs, that includes yours as well as broader set of community members.
I understand that you do not agree the simple text is good, as you have made your point very clearly -- this comes down to disagreement on how to interpret clarity.
Unfortunately one can not both expand the text(to fulfill one request) while also keep the text simple (to fulfill the need of others). After considering your input, as well as inputs from broader community members, I think it is good course of action to keep the proposal text as it is after looking at the inputs so far and let the community decide whether to accept it.
At any time point, you are more than welcomed to bring up a proposal to the community as well that is independent from this one.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] leandron commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "leandron (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
leandron commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1287358252
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
Review Comment:
Closing this as it is covered in the last review as code changes.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1287637923
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make the following strategic decisions in the TVM community:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
Review Comment:
I am not sure I get it. strategy do not necessarily entail deprecation or breaking changes :)
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] Johnson9009 commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "Johnson9009 (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
Johnson9009 commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1287828296
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make the following strategic decisions in the TVM community:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
I perfer W1, because it is very hard for downstream to maintain several branches to keep track with the community's important Work, especially for the commercial company that have customer release pressure.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] Johnson9009 commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "Johnson9009 (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
Johnson9009 commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1287837461
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
Review Comment:
e.g. I can't spend too much time to read a long long discussion article, if a commercial company will do a decision like this way, it will loss all customers.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1285827223
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
I think it is up to @Hzfengsy to decide what to do with the other RFC. (addressing your question on what to do with existing RFC).
I would remark that this reply is not taking the either the options that you listed, which contains specific operational ways of how. Instead it addresses the two action items (that covers the questions you ask):
- "close the other RFC": leave it up to @Hzfengsy , however i don't think any action needs to be taken until we conclude either one of the two.
- "expand this one or remove this point": as being stated, the goal is to is to come up with simple, less verbose process that everyone understand, as verbatim it is quite clear I think to many community members.
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
I think it is up to @Hzfengsy to decide what to do with the other RFC. (addressing your question on what to do with existing RFC).
I would remark that this reply is not taking the either the options that you listed, which contains specific operational ways of how. Instead it addresses the possible action items (that covers the questions you ask):
- "close the other RFC": leave it up to @Hzfengsy , however i don't think any action needs to be taken until we conclude either one of the two.
- "expand this one or remove this point": as being stated, the goal is to is to come up with simple, less verbose process that everyone understand, as verbatim it is quite clear I think to many community members.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1285827223
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
I think it is up to @Hzfengsy to decide what to do with the other RFC. (addressing your question on what to do with existing RFC).
I would remark that this reply is not taking the either of the specific the options that you listed, which implies specific operational ways of how. Instead it addresses the possible action items (that covers the questions you ask):
- "close the other RFC": I would leave the action of the other RFC @Hzfengsy , however i don't think any action needs to be taken until we conclude either one of the two.
- "expand this one or or remove this point": as being stated, the goal is to is to come up with simple, less verbose process that everyone understand, as verbatim it is quite clear I think to many community members.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1287618638
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Review Comment:
Thank you for your input
ASF requires consensus on code-level contributions, but the case of long term strategy decisions are left unspecified for per project.
But I appreciate that some may have a different view, and that is a process issue(e.g. how the community operate), and is being decided procedurally by each ASF community, which we are doing right now.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1283452688
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring more verbose processes in a less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes Lazy 2/3 majority of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
Review Comment:
I used the terminology here https://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html lazy 2/3 majority
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] comaniac commented on pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "comaniac (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
comaniac commented on PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#issuecomment-1664957730
+1
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [tvm-rfcs] tqchen commented on a diff in pull request #102: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
Posted by "tqchen (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
tqchen commented on code in PR #102:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/102#discussion_r1284426638
##########
rfcs/0102-clarify-strategy-decision-process.md:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Authors: @tqchen
+
+- Feature Name: [Process RFC] Clarify Community Strategy Decision Process
+- Start Date: 2023-08-03
+- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0102](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/0102)
+- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000)
+
+## Summary
+
+Machine Learning Compilation (MLC) is an emerging field in fast development.
+With the tremendous help from the whole community, it’s exciting to see that TVM delivers significant needs from and to
+developers and thus has become widely popular in both academia and industry.
+
+As the community pushes for different goals that help each other, naturally, there
+are strategy decision points about overall directions and new modules adoptions.
+These decisions are not fine-grained code-level changes but are important for a
+community to be viable in the long term.
+The process of bringing those changes is less clarified to the community, and hurdles can be high.
+We have made attempts in the past to bring a more verbose processes, but this has proven to be less successful.
+One observation is that it is hard for broader volunteer developers and community members to follow complicated processes.
+Additionally, different members can have different interpretations of how to do things,
+leading to stagnation and lack of participation from volunteer members.
+
+We are in a different world now in the case of ML/AI ecosystem, and it is critical for
+the community to be able to make collective decisions together and empower the community.
+Following the practices of existing ASF projects (e.g. hadoop), we propose to use a simple process for strategic decisions.
+
+## Proposal: Strategy Decision Process
+
+We propose the following clarification of the strategy decision process:
+It takes lazy 2/3 majority (at least 3 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes)
+of binding decisions to make strategic decisions in the TVM community, including:
+
+- Adoption of a guidance-level community strategy to enable new directions or overall project evolution.
+- Establishment of a new module in the project.
Review Comment:
The goal is to come up with simple, less verbose process that everyone understand, as verbatim it is quite clear I think to many community members
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@tvm.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org