@mbaret > I don't think it's fair or accurate to dismiss legitimate concerns of > community contributors as 'subjective'. @areusch has already enumerated in > some detail an 'objective' list of impacts that an S0 module can have on the > wider project. I think at a minimum we should be addressing those points > before implying that objecting to S0 modules is somehow improper (which of > course it is not).
I don't want to dismiss every concern and comment in the discussion (also other feedback from the community). It spent me some time to reply to @areusch as the comments are a bit long and I'm a non-native speaker, which costs me a bit more time to organize my words. > Let's keep it that way and make sure everyone feels welcomed, recognising > that constructive debate (like that happening on this very RFC) benefits us > all. Please directly point it out if I miss any public voice. And please let me know if you feel un-welcomed during the discussion and the reasoning. I'm not a native speaker, so maybe I will make mistakes in wording and may make you uncomfortable. If so, please also let me know, and I will apologize. Again, we are working on the points and trying to address them before voting, which will absolutely benefit TVM. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/95#issuecomment-1288803485 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/95/c1288803...@github.com>
