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

[Chris Lattner via llvm-dev]

On May 5, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> 
> I think the swift code is simple, and albeit over-specifying, good
> enough for most purposes. In comparison to the current proposal, I
> think it would be an improvement, but there are two main problems:
> 
> 
>   1. We don't have project maintainers.

“maintainer” is merely terminology.  It maps onto “code owner” in the LLVM sense.

> We have code owners, some of them haven't touched the sources, or
> haven't interacted with the community in a while. The current owners
> haven't singed up for maintainership (whatever that entails), so we
> can't just change the roles.

I fail to see your point here.  I agree that we have some inactive code owners, and that should be fixed independently of this conversation.  For active ones, I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to uphold the ideals of the LLVM community.  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.

>   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. :-)

> I personally think your "rule" was one that not one of us would be
> able to do justice. 


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.

> The foundation may have tried to take your place, but I don't think it
> succeeded. I don't think it will in its present form, and I personally
> think it shows how mature our community really is.

You’re welcome to your opinion on the matter.

-Chris