[cfe-dev] Status of SEH?
dannyb at google.com
Thu Jan 30 16:57:14 PST 2014
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
> On 30/01/2014 22:57, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
>>> On 30/01/2014 22:06, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>>> Actually, the policy actually says the right thing, you removed a
>>>> sentence, which says:
>>>> "Please contact the oversight group for more details."
>>> To be clear, I didn't remove this sentence -- it's some way down in the
>>> paragraph and pertains to receiving details from the oversight group,
>>> whereas the section about providing notification pertains to "us", the
>>> This is grammatically clear and unambiguous so if it's not the intention,
>>> that needs to be reworded.
>> Don't take this the wrong way, but most people would still understand
>> that this probably means "don't talk about patents except to the
>> oversight group".
> Hi Dan,
> I'm not sure if you realize, but that paragraph reads as an open invitation
> to notify and discuss patents on the development and commits lists.
>> There are roughly no open source projects where the
>> rule is "talk about patents all you like on random development mailing
> There are plenty of projects around the world the where that is absolutely
> the rule.
> Your remarks suggest that you've worked on a limited range of projects
> without the perspective it takes to accurately word a developer policy like
> this for an international audience.
Actually, I've worked on hundreds of open source projects, and plenty
of them very international, and worded a fairly large number of
developer policies. You can't write one that works for everyone no
matter what you do.
But rather than say what you did, which comes off as a personal
attack, a more productive thing to say it would have been "I would
find the current policy better if it was worded like <x>"
> "Most people" doesn't cut it here and we need to set out our expectations
> explicitly before we start turning away new contributors and telling them to
> "hit the road" for something they said.
I didn't see anyone do anything of the sort here.
> I can't stand by while new contributors receive abuse for some violation of
> a rule that's not even written in the LLVM developer policy.
Now we've gone from someone kindly asking someone else not to discuss
something to abuse?
> We should assume that contributors come from a background that's varied,
> inclusive and different to the norms in our immediate circles, and aim to
> provide them with accurate and helpful guidance in the developer policy and
> reflects our expectations. Flaming people when they try to engage our
> community because they have a different legal system or interpretation.
I haven't see any flaming here either ...
> What next, turn people away because they have a funny name? Reject patches
> because their skin color is different to yours? I'm disappointed that you've
> tried to defend what is clearly repeated and inexcusable behaviour by
> Chandler towards people who are graciously trying to help out. In so far as
> there is a community, we must stand up distance ourselves from behaviour
> like that.
This seems like a pretty strong digression and very odd comparison.
I'm not sure what personal issues you have with chandler, but he
kindly asked someone not to discuss stuff. The entire part above,
both about chandler, and me, seem like highly unproductive personal
> (This is becoming OT for cfe-dev, moving the thread to llvm-dev. Let's
> refocus into a more productive mode and and roll a patch already?)
> the browser experts
More information about the cfe-dev