[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Status of SEH?

[Alp Toker]

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 LLVM
>> community.
>>
>> 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
> lists"

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.

"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 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.

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.

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 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?)

Alp.


-- 
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts