[llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct
Chris Lattner via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu May 5 21:40:43 PDT 2016
On May 5, 2016, at 8:34 PM, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote:
>>> 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..
As a matter of fact, I was also very interested in kicking off the discussion. Chandler and I discussed it, and since he is so particularly passionate about it, we agreed that he would lead the conversation.
I find your position here concerning: you’re effectively saying that you would rather have had this handed down on high by a dictator, providing clarity but also inflexibility. The path we (Chandler & I) chose was to engage the community in discussion, socialize this, and attempt to get broad scale cooperation on this - even knowing that it is impossible to make everyone happy.
Even if it is your preference to have a dictator tell the community that they *have* to do something, I would be *strongly* opposed to that. That is exactly the scenario that we *don’t* want, and yet, ironically something that we (Chandler & I) are being accused of.
More information about the llvm-dev