[llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct

C Bergström via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu May 5 20:34:11 PDT 2016

>>   2. We don't have a single strong leader.
>> We have many strong leaders, but not a single point of reference. You
>> were much more active years ago, and no one has actually stepped in as
>> you faded into other projects.
> It is hard for me to not laugh at this - it appears that you’re trying to insult me or something.  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. :-)

In no way do I think anyone meant to offend you, but I agree with
Renato. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess why he said this as
well as why others may see it this way too..

For clarity his choice of words may be wrong and I think he meant to
say you're not a benevolent dictator..

Sometimes when things get sticky - Linus will step in and resolve it
or at least weigh in heavily. This CoC is a good example where I'm
happy to see you step in, but in other circumstances you're absent
from comment/discussion.

I guess it may be a difference in style where Linus is more like
Donald Trump (Sorry Linus) and you're just less-outspoken (or busy)

Under a single strong leader, I'd argue that this CoC would be
resolved by now. A design which the consensus can accept would have
happened by now. IMHO *you* should have put forward this proposal and
not Chandler.

It's great we don't have any single point of failure and many strong
leaders, but herding cats isn't easy..

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list