Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
113 lines (95 loc) · 4.01 KB

2021-02-11.md

File metadata and controls

113 lines (95 loc) · 4.01 KB

initial meeting IWG workgroup

2020-02-11

Agenda

see issue #3

Participants

  • Christian Kühnel
  • Philip Reames
  • Zhiqian Xia
  • Anja Gerbes
  • Cameron McInally
  • Anton Korobeynikov
  • Mikhail Goncharov
  • Mike Edwards
  • Tom Stellard
  • Mehdi Amini
  • Wei Wu
  • Shivam Gupta

Minutes

Getting to know

common themes on the motivation for joining the working group:

  • improving infrastructure
  • improving buildbots
  • increasing code quality
  • improving documentation
  • improving testing

discuss first work items #5

Initial work item: Document existing LLVM infrastructure

  • unclear what we have
  • unclear who is maintaining it
  • unclear whom to contact if something is broken
  • this will help us define scope of our working group
  • Rationale:
    • gain trust of community before tackling larger topics
    • non-controversial topic
  • Focus on completeness of the list than on perfection/quality of documentation
  • Christian started a collection of the existing infrastructure, cf. #9
  • Action item: agree how we want to review this type of documents (PRs vs. Phabricator), cf. #18

Discussions

  • Other topics we could start working on:
    • who handles incoming infrastructure bug reports?
      • central point of contact? then route the requests?
  • What is our scope?
    • Primary mission: Community infrastructure and tooling
    • Maybe also: tools used by the foundation (and not the community)
      • Example: helping with the refresh of the llvm.org website
      • community and foundation might have different requirements (e.g. open vs. proprietary tools)
      • stakeholders are different!
      • we should be explicit in our work regarding stakeholders and their requirements
    • This working group should play an active role in defining the scope!
  • What is our role? Do we make decisions? Or recommendations?
    • We should make the recommendations and have the community decide.
    • How do we come to decisions on infrastructure then?
      • Follow what the community does already: RFCs, decision making process
      • If it impacts ths developer workflows: build community consensus
      • infrastructure only: this group should be able to decide
  • What is our budget? Our time? Money?
    • How much time can the working group members dedicate?
    • How much money can we spend?
      • corporate sponsors might be able to gather some donations for taking over some infrastructure
      • the foundation reserved budget for infrastructure work in 2021
      • some vendors donate working hours to the foundation (instead of money)
    • Focus of the group should be on organizing/managing and less on running the infrastructure ourselves.
    • Action item: Understand what our current infrastructure costs and how we can spend our money (and time) wisely, cf. #19.
  • How often do we want to meet?
    • long term: once a month
    • short term: bi-weekly
    • action item: Schedule next meeting in ~2 weeks, cf. #20.
  • How do we communicate
    • Slack? Discourse? Discord? IRC? Email?
    • Decision:
  • action item: formalize this working group, cf. #22.
    • elect chair
    • define list of members
    • documentation of responsibilities (e.g. how long do people serve?) as guidelines for future members

discuss how we want to work #4

postponed to next meeting

other topics

see "Discussion" above