Re: Plumbers CF MCs

From: "Jose E. Marchesi" <jemarch@gnu.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc: Elena Zannoni <elena.zannoni@oracle.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org,
	clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
	Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@canonical.com>,
	nick.alcock@oracle.com,
	Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: Plumbers CF MCs
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 09:59:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r1ju1llu.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOd=aCn9WqcZe8KgvvZmW0C0nUVL9+sjE_xh0A-ru-995Hg@mail.gmail.com> (Nick Desaulniers's message of "Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:36:03 -0700")

Hi Nick.

> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:35 PM Elena Zannoni <elena.zannoni@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/22/21 2:39 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
>> > Hi Nick.
>> >
>> >> I saw plumbers opened call for microconferences:
>> >> https://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/blog/2021/index.php/2021/03/18/cfp-open-microconferences/
>> >>
>> >> I was going to put together a submission; do we want to do a combined
>> >> toolchain MC, or have distinct ones this year?
>> >>
>> >> I know in 2020 the GNU cauldron was co-located with Plumbers, as well
>> >> as a GNU Tools Track MC and LLVM MC.
>> > We are actually discussing in another thread about abusing LPC's
>> > hospitality for another GNU Tools Track this year...
>> >
>> > Regarding the micro-conferences, I would be ok with either combined or
>> > separated.  I think both approaches have their advantages.
>> >
>> > In either case I'm up for organizing the GNU part.
>>
>> Hi,
>> yes, so, it looks like a GNU toolchain track will happen again this year
>> at LPC (in lieu of the Cauldron conference).
>
> Cool; I generally find these talks of more interest to me personally
> than many of the kernel topics. It's nice to be able to attend (as an
> LLVM developer).
>
>> For the toolchain related MC, we should pick a better name than last
>> year to avoid people getting confused between the MC and the track.
>> Something like "toolchains and kernel intersection" or similar.
>
> Oh, yeah, that's a great idea.

What about "Toolchains and Kernel MC".

>> I am neutral on whether it is with LLVM or separate. I guess it all
>> depends on how long we want the MC to be.
>> If there are enough topics for a double slot, you should request that
>> sooner rather than towards the end, when there might be no extra slots
>> left.
>
> Sure, that sounds good.  Maybe we can have a CFP for the proposed MC,
> and if we get enough interesting proposals that it doesn't look like
> we'll be able to accomodate what we'd like, we can split into two MCs
> (if we even need to cross that bridge; maybe we can fit everything
> into the 4hrs for an MC).

I think that is a good plan.

So, how should we proceed?  Should I send a MC proposal, or you do it?
:)