I have concerns about this proposal. Those concerns aren't necessarily
unaddressable, but I do want to share them. My concerns fall into two
broad categories.
The first category is the process one. My understanding when the LLVM
foundation was established was that the role of the foundation and the
board was to support the community, not to make major decisions for the
community. I understand there is a degree of pragmatism we have to
accept - e.g. sometimes the situation forces our hand, and we need to
act, even if in a sub-optimal way - but this runs dangerously close to
the edge of the board dictating the solution to the community. I do
want to acknowledge that I truly do thing everyone on the board is
acting in good faith here. I'm not so much worried about the intentions
of anyone involved so much as the appearance and precedent this sets.
The second category is the proposed migration itself. I'll start by
saying that the restriction in the proposal text to the *-dev lists
(explicitly excluding the *commits lists) does soften my concerns
substantially, but I'm left wondering about the long term plan for the
commit lists. As has come up in recent threads around phabricator, I
feel the commit lists play a critical role in our development practice
and, almost more importantly, *culture* which is hard to replicate.
I'm a bit worried that this proposal if accepted will be the camel
getting his nose under the tent as it were.
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. However,
there are multiple commercial vendors which provide mailman hosting.
TBH, this seems like a case where the foundation should simply pay for
commercial hosting and migration support to mailman3. It may be this is
a lot more expensive in practice than I'm imagining, but this feels like
it should be our default answer and that anything else (i.e. discourse)
should require major evidence of benefit over that default to be considered.
Third, I'm worried that there are culture elements very tied up in our
current usage of the mailing lists. As some specific examples, consider
each of the following:
* Discourse does not allow private responses via email. You have to
use their web interface. I spent a lot of time replying privately
to other contributors. I'm worried that, in practice, the extra
step will cause me to follow up less, and miss even more responses.
I'm particularly concerned about the impact for new contributors.
(Existing contributors, I probably have an email address for already.)
* Discourses does not allow cross posts (or at least, it's not clear
how to do so). At least a couple times a year, we have design
discussions which cross between sub-projects. This can be addressed
with a process change, but it needs some discussion before the
migration happens.
It's not that we can't adjust our processes to the limitations of
discourse; we clearly can. My concern is all of the subtle things we
loose along the way.
Now that I've finished up, let me explicitly state that I don't intend
my comments here to be blocking. I don't think this is a good idea, or
at least needs further expansion before acceptance, but I'm also not in
place where I can really invest in providing a realistic alternative.
At the end of the day, pragmatism does require that we give discretion
to the folks actually investing their own time, and energy to keep the
community running.
Philip
On 6/1/21 1:50 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev wrote:
Hi,
We recently[1] ran into some issues with the mailing lists that caused
us to disable automatic approval of subscriptions. Over the past few
months, the LLVM Foundation Board of Directors have been investigating
solutions to this issue and are recommending that the project move its
discussion forum from mailman to Discourse[2]
