Thanks @mbaret. First of all, I have updated my original post and please read it through again.
> In such a situation, I would expect that with the combined resources of those > eight organizations, they could address any concerns raised by the community > through the standard process. they'd first and foremost prioritize listening > to and respecting the existing community. These people **are part of** the existing community. And existing community as a whole should work on listening and empowering each other. People contribute in different ways, code, documents, advocation, no one means would be superior to another one. > Resources and ability to go through process A lot of our discussions are about how we should operate as a community. Shall we always disallow new modules that have relevant features to coexist with existing ones? Should we outright reject the phased approach and always ask for a detailed plan before accepting a module? After considering the arguments, shall we empower community members so some of them can enjoy the new module, and help us to grow our developer community? There is no single perfect answer here, and we all need to evaluate things by considering all the factors. First of all, it is important to acknowledge that each of our views is both valid in many cases. It is very important to understand each others' view, and re-evaluate the proposal under such a context. So while some of the concerns or ask from some of our members might seem valid, and it could be one way on how we operate things -- we should totally acknowledge that. The other ways of operating things are also valid. Simply stall in one case would implicitly mean that we reject the other way of operations that encourages moving things forward. And we needs to lean into the community when choosing hows. There is a reason why ASF have tools to do enable procedural votes and our community brings up the process RFC. We are following that process. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/95#issuecomment-1339754681 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/95/c1339754...@github.com>
