[QualGroup][docs] Document decision-taking process and refresh sync-up materials

[IamYJLee]

Summary

This PR documents the LLVM Qualification Working Group’s decision-taking process and updates the latest sync-up meeting materials.

Changes

• Added a new Decision Taking section describing:

  • Principles (consensus-first, inclusiveness, transparency)Discussion time limits
  • Voting procedure
  • Documentation of outcomes

• Updated Meeting Materials with the October 2025 presentation slides.

Background

The LLVM Qualification Working Group aims to ensure decisions are made transparently and collaboratively.
This new section documents how proposals are discussed, consensus is reached, and outcomes are recorded, providing clear guidance for contributors.
It also keeps the group’s meeting resources up to date for easier reference and continuity.

Testing

• Documentation builds successfully
• New “Decision Taking” section renders correctly
• Links and internal references are properly formatted
• Meeting Materials section updated with the October 2025 slides

Related Links

• LLVM Qualification Working Group Documentation

[uwendi]

LGTM.
Though, I would like to suggest an edition:
In "Current Topics & Backlog", move the last item in the list

• (add future entries here)

to the first position, as the entries are being added in reverse order.

[IamYJLee]

@uwendi Thank you for your feedback — I’ve addressed the review comments.

[uwendi]

@uwendi Thank you for your feedback — I’ve addressed the review comments.

Looks perfect, thank you.
No additional comments from my side. Let's give it a moment to see if any other member in the Qual WG has further input.

[petbernt]

I noticed a couple of things that should be addressed before this can be merged:

1. Merge commits
There are several merge commits in this branch (for example, "Merge branch 'main' into 'qualwg-docs/decision-taking-and-syncup'").

LLVM follows a linear-history policy, which means merge commits are not permitted. As stated in the LLVM Developer Policy (https://llvm.org/docs/Contributing.html#for-developers-to-commit-changes-from-git):

"LLVM has a linear-history policy, which means that merge commits are not allowed, and the main branch is configured to reject pushes that include merges."

Please rebase your branch on top of the latest main instead of merging it:

git fetch upstream
git rebase -i upstream/main
# squash/reorder commits as needed
git push --force-with-lease origin <branch-name>

This will remove the merge commits and produce a clean, linear history consistent with LLVM’s workflow.

2. Broken hyperlink in the PR description
The Related Links section currently points to:
https://llvm.org/docs/QualificationWorkingGroup.html
which returns 404 Not Found.
It should instead link to:
https://llvm.org/docs/QualGroup.html

Finally, please take a moment to review the full LLVM Contributing Guide (https://llvm.org/docs/Contributing.html) — it contains useful details about commit structure, review conventions, and contribution etiquette.

[IamYJLee]

@petbernt Thank you for your feedback.
I’ve addressed all comments and updated the PR to align with LLVM community practices.
I really appreciate your help!

[CarlosAndresRamirez]

Thanks for this contribution.
Looks good to me.

[ZakyHermawan]

I think we should clarify who the chair/moderator is. If there isn't an official one, maybe we can make person who starts the thread should be responsible for taking one of these three actions if the discussion stalls for the agreed-upon period ?

[IamYJLee]

Good point — I agree that clarifying who the chair/moderator is makes sense.
Based on Wendi’s suggestion, I’d propose adding the following clarification after the current line:

To prevent open-ended debates, if no new viewpoints are expressed after an agreed period (e.g., 2 weeks), the chair (or moderator) may:

+ The chair (typically the person who started the Discord or Discourse thread) acts as the moderator, responsible for summarizing or escalating the discussion as appropriate.

This addition, reflecting Wendi’s suggestion, makes the transition smoother and defines the temporary chair role more clearly.
Also, this is a temporary definition — later, once we designate a chair and clarify their role and term as Wendi suggested, we can revise it accordingly.

@uwendi @ZakyHermawan What do you think?

[uwendi]

@IamYJLee
Thanks, that’s a very good proposal. I really like how you phrased it as a temporary clarification.

My opinion: perhaps we can refer to “the moderator (typically the person who started the thread)” instead of “the chair (typically the person who started the thread)”. This keeps the language consistent with our current practice, where moderation happens ad hoc and organically, and no formal chair role exists yet.

Using moderator makes it clearer that this person’s role is simply to guide the discussion and summarize consensus, not to make decisions on behalf of the group. If we later define a chair or co-chairs (for coordination and continuity), we can update this section accordingly.

The only thing we temporarily lose by completely removing “the chair” (which was never formally designated anyway) is a clear external point of contact and a bit of continuity across discussions. For now, though, these can be handled collectively until the group chooses to formalize that role, if it ever feels necessary.

[IamYJLee]

@uwendi Addressed review feedback in 57a2da0.
I didn't add the additional explanation for the chair, as we now use “moderator” instead.

[uwendi]

@ZakyHermawan
The LLVM Qualification WG operates by consensus. We may designate a chair (or co-chairs) to facilitate meetings and ensure continuity of discussions, but this role shouldn’t carry decision-making authority beyond moderating discussions and summarizing consensus.

Naming a chair too early can appear hierarchical. In LLVM (and in open source more broadly), we tend to prefer shared stewardship, so the chair’s role should remain facilitative, not authoritative.

In a working group, the chair typically:

• Facilitates meetings: prepares the agenda, keeps discussions on topic, ensures all voices are heard, and provides a single contact for scheduling and closing discussions.
• Ensures continuity: helps maintain momentum if participation fluctuates or discussions stall.
• Represents the group externally: communicates progress and outcomes to the wider community or related organizations.

For reference, a comparable role exists in other open-source safety initiatives. For example, Philipp Ahmann serves as chair of the ELISA Lighthouse OSS WG, where the position is mainly organizational, not directive.

In our context, a chair could be designated now, based on the general opinion of the core members, but we should then add a short clarification about its role in the documentation. The role could also rotate among active contributors in the future. Until then, following your suggestion, the person who initiates a Discord (or Discourse) thread would act as the moderator, taking responsibility for summarizing or escalating the discussion after the agreed period.

What do you think?

[uwendi]

By the way, I forgot to mention that who becomes the chair depends on the context:

• In formal standards bodies, the chair is usually an elected or appointed individual recognized for leadership, expertise, and neutrality, sometimes nominated by the group and confirmed by a parent committee.
• In company-internal working groups, it’s often a team lead, senior engineer, or manager who initiated or oversees the topic.
• In community-driven groups, it’s typically the founder or main organizer who convened the group initially. In more mature communities, this role may rotate periodically to maintain shared ownership.

In the example I mentioned from the Lighthouse OSS Working Group (ELISA Project), which is a community-driven group, Philipp is the person who initiated the group, with Gabriele serving as co-chair.

[uwendi]

After review, I only have two minor edition requests.

[uwendi]

As you introduced the definition of moderator in "Consensus and Time Limits", I suggest to completely remove "the chair" from this line:

• The moderator may call for a simple vote using emoji reactions on Discord or a similar visible method.

[IamYJLee]

@uwendi Addressed review feedback in d1c5ed8.

[uwendi]

Just a small edition here:

<...> the moderator (typically the person who started the discussion thread) may take one <...>

[IamYJLee]

@uwendi Addressed review feedback in d1c5ed8.

[CarlosAndresRamirez]

Please consider the changes suggested by Wendi. That aside, it looks good to me.

[ZakyHermawan]

LGTM

[petar-jovanovic]

LGTM.

[evodius96]

LGTM

[uwendi]

LGTM