I want to come back and encourage that we take fine-grained steps. As @Hzfengsy mentioned, many community members, including himself, had to overcome a large language barrier to be able to come out and help facilitate this process. Having a dragging conversation simply due to bundling reduces the ability for volunteers to participate, which goes against core one principle of ASF – which is empowering everyone. We should reduce such burden by having well scoped proposals, knowing that with a growing community, the conversation always continues.
One observation is that there can be a disagreement on how much bundling we have in making decisions. I would like to come back and acknowledge what you stated, @areusch have clearly made points– requiring all approvals, requiring S1 and S2 discussions, and bundling stability discussion to be addressed is a valid position on how we do things to establish this process. It is also clear that many others had a different position, that emphasizes on empowering the majority of the community, more fine-grained decision making so we don’t have to bundle all these conversations together and continue to empower each other. They are different valid opinions on how we shall operate. After acknowledging each other’s views, take these into context, and have a constructive conversation, I recommend listening to the majority community's voices and empowering the community. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/95#issuecomment-1338702897 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/95/c1338702...@github.com>
