Hi @leandron! Would you kindly consider posting the text changes you would like
to see in order for you to lift your changes requested? This may help keep
discussions concise as well as help others in the community understand your
desires most directly.
If convenient to you, it could help disc
+1! I really like this proposal! The ability to move fast is crucial in
adapting to the ever-evolving AI infra. I like the concept of lazy majority of
binding decisions, it could facilitate the decision-making process and make
sense to me.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
As a diverse community, there are clearly different opinions on rules and
guidelines of community operation, and it's not unusually that people agree to
disagree. As PMC members, it's our responsibility to take actions to navigate
the way the community operates, hearing voices from the community
It is clear from current conversations and past conversations that there are
different opinions on how we should operate as a community.
These include what we should prioritize (e.g., “prioritize evolving our
existing components, e.g., IR”), how we evolve core components, and how to
“ensure lon
> The RFC is about how we operate as a community, and it's not necessarily
> related to "gigantic puzzle of features". To clarify, according to my read,
> this RFC is particularly designed to be extremely conservative that a
> decision making should get super majority (2/3) of the votes to p
