[llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct
Renato Golin via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu May 5 16:02:43 PDT 2016
On 5 May 2016 at 23:31, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> Code owners are the leaders in the LLVM community, and driving/guiding the community *is* what they signed up for. If we need to refine the wording around that, then lets do that.
This is what *I* signed up for, and I try to do my best. But I know
people that didn't. I think we should refine the wording.
> It is hard for me to not laugh at this - it appears that you’re trying to insult me or something.
Hum, no. I think you don't know me well enough, then.
> Fortunately, I have a thick skin, but keep in mind that you have absolutely no knowledge of how much time and energy I continue to put into LLVM. :-)
Seems I don't, maybe that's my point. I'm involved in a lot of goes
around LLVM for a long time. Maybe I'm really that blind... Or maybe
it is hard to see, because of what goes behind doors.
When I discuss the kernel with people, everything is about Linus.
Phrases go around like "if it's not in Linus' tree, it's not Linux".
GCC has the same thing about its maintainers, and they have a much
stronger control over their areas.
None of that seems to happen to any noticeable degree in LLVM. We had
many changes done without so much as a warning and no amount of
discussion has led folks to re-think their approach. That behaviour
wasn't from a single leader, but from a variety of people with some
degree of respect in their own areas.
Or, maybe, I'm so impossibly autistic, that all reality has failed to
reach my cortex... If that's so, I'm surely not alone.
> My personal involvement isn’t relevant to this discussion: the LLVM foundation is a single legal entity that you’re looking for. It exists in large part because this *isn’t* about me, or any other single person.
How large? I mean, if we really care about the community as a whole,
and if the foundation is now the official representative of our
community, wouldn't it be better if we could choose who represents us?
Because when this was an Apple project, we all knew we couldn't do
much. But since it became widely used, companies and individuals
started to trust that they, too, could have a say. It is, after all,
open source in some way.
And in that respect, many have done so. Google, Sony, ARM, Qualcomm,
Samsung are but a few of those companies that are now relying on LLVM,
not Apple, to drive their products. I know of many others who are
moving into it full speed. Most of them Chinese, and they don't share
all your world views. Will we start refusing their technical
contributions because of that? Even if they don't behave badly in the
community, they may express their different views on the company web
page. Where's the line?
If, on the other hand, the foundation became an elected body, then the
whole community would feel represented, US, Europe and China (and
others), and there would be no need to strong hand anything.
More information about the llvm-dev