[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Developer meeting videos up

[Chris Lattner]

On Oct 19, 2009, at 7:55 AM, Ken Dyck wrote:

> I'd also like to register my disappointment that the slides and videos
> aren't available.
>
> On Friday, October 16, 2009 4:46 PM, David Greene wrote:
>> When I agreed to be a speaker, I signed off on having my
>> talk made publicly available.  There does seem to be a
>> double-standard here and that's concerning.
>
> There are few things about this whole situation that aren't clear to  
> me:
>
> 1. With what organization were these speaker agreements made?

With the developer meeting organizers.

> 2. Did the speakers from Apple sign the same agreements?

No, it turns out that they generally didn't because we didn't  
anticipate a problem.  Even if they did, the speakers themselves don't  
have authority to release this, they generally have to check with  
their employers.

> 3. If the agreements were made with an organization other than  
> Apple, on
> what basis are the materials being witheld?
> 3a. That is, do the Dev Meeting organizers, or whichever  
> organization it
> was that issued the agreements, already have legal permission to  
> release
> them?
> 3b. What would be the consequences of releasing the materials without
> Apple's approval?

As I stated previously, we found out about this extremely late into  
the process.  There is a high probability that at least some of the  
slides will get released in time.

> 4. If the agreements were made with Apple, why?

n/a.

> 4a. Is there a need for the community to establish an independent  
> legal
> entity (similar to the FSF or the Apache Software Foundation) to  
> govern
> LLVM development and organize developer meetings?

I agree that a third party foundation would be useful for other  
reasons, but this wouldn't help anything in this case.

My read of your position here is that you're coming at this from a  
confused angle.  From my perspective, Apple has some just about  
everything right w.r.t. developing LLVM in the open, contributing  
code, fostering development etc.  The only major problem to date has  
been around speakers at the developer meeting, which is a pretty minor  
issue in the big picture, and still is an ongoing debate (so it isn't  
a done deal).

Getting back to "it wouldn't help anything": if the Developer Meeting  
were held elsewhere and if the current rule was still in place, it  
would be very simple: there would be no Apple speakers because they  
wouldn't be able to sign the form.  This doesn't seem to achieve your  
goal of making those talks public.

-Chris