On 6/21/21 12:53 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
On Jun 9, 2021, at 10:50 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev
<llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
Specific to the dev lists, I'm very hesitant about moving from
mailing lists to discourse. Why?
Well, the first and most basic is I'm worried about having core
infrastructure out of our own control. For all their problems,
mailing lists are widely supported, there are many
vendors/contractors available. For discourse, as far as I can tell,
there's one vendor. It's very much a take it or leave it situation.
The ability to preserve discussion archives through a transition away
from discourse someday concerns me. I regularly and routinely need
to dig back through llvm-dev threads which are years old. I've also
recently had some severely negative customer experiences with other
tools (most recently discord), and the thought of having my
employability and ability to contribute to open source tied to my
ability to get a response from customer service teams at some third
party vendor I have no leverage with, bluntly, scares me.
Second, I feel that we've overstated the difficulty of maintaining
mailing lists. I have to acknowledge that I have little first hand
experience administering mailman, so maybe I'm way off here.
Hi Philip,
Hi Chris,
First, despite the similar names, Discord is very different than
Discourse. Here I’m only commenting about Discourse, I have no
opinion about Discord.
I'm aware, thank you. I'm sorry that my wording seems to have caused
confusion on this point.
In this case, I think we need to highly weight the opinions of the
people actively mainlining the existing systems. It has become clear
that the priority isn’t “control our own lists”, it is “make sure they
stay up” and “get LLVM people out of maintaining them”.
The ongoing load of maintaining these lists (including moderation) and
of dealing with the security issues that keep coming up are carried by
several individuals, not by the entire community. I’m concerned about
those individuals, but I’m also more broadly concerned about *any*
individuals being solely responsible for LLVM infra. Effectively
every case we’ve had where an individual has driving LLVM infra turns
out to be a problem. LLVM as a project isn’t good at running web
scale infra, but we highly depend on it.
It seems clear to me that we should outsource this to a proven vendor.
I agree with everything you said up to here. The goals make sense, and
I fully support them.
Your concerns about discourse seem very similar to the discussion
about moving to Github (being a single vendor who was once much
smaller than Microsoft). I think your concerns are best addressed by
having the IWG propose an answer to “what is our plan if
Discourse-the-company goes sideways?"
This is where I disagree. The key point for me is that mailman3 exists
and there are commercial vendors who specialize in exactly what we
need. I don't object at all to having a proven vendor. I just don't
see discourse as being the obvious choice.
Now, as I said in my first email, you don't actually need to convince me
here. If the move is made to discourse, I will follow. At the end of
the day, a decision does need to be made, and I'm willing to defer to
those putting in the work.
Philip
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev