> First of all, I have updated my last post and please read it through again.
Extensively editing your reply after people reply to it creates a discussion that's essentially impossible to follow. If you want to raise new points, and in the interest of maintaining the public record of our discussions, I'd appreciate a separate reply. Editing should be for making small corrections or minor additions, not completely re-drafting a response. > Shall we always disallow new modules that have relevant features to coexist > with existing ones? It's getting a bit tiresome pretending this RFC isn't in direct response to what's happened with Relax, as no concrete examples are being cited and the mysterious 'hypothetical' happens to coincide precisely with the Relax situation. If the request on the Relax RFC was 'scrap this entirely, rewrite it some other way', I'd have absolute sympathy. But let's recall what was _actually_ requested on that RFC: - Explanation of why the technical approach taken we chosen - Roadmap of features that were going to implemented (not explicit timelines) - Roadmap of how someone currently using Relay could migrate to Relax These were questions asked in good faith by an organisation that actually _wanted to migrate to Relax_, so it's unbelievable to me how they were treated. I personally spent many many hours of my own time trying to find a resolution to that RFC so that Relax could progress. And what I concluded was that positive, constructive and polite engagement would have entirely avoided the situation we're now in, it's completely unrelated to process. If we really want to improve our community, we should all reflect on how that RFC (and the following vote) was handled and what lessons were learnt. I'm concerned that instead of being genuinely interested in improving the contribution lifecycle in TVM (an issue I care about and am very interested in), this RFC is instead just about amending the rules to override a specific veto. Could you reaffirm you're original commitment that this new process will not apply retroactively, including to Relax? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/95#issuecomment-1339922203 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/95/c1339922...@github.com>
