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

[Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev]

> On May 5, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On 5 May 2016 at 23:31, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> This is what *I* signed up for, and I try to do my best. But I know
> people that didn't. I think we should refine the wording.
> 
> 
>> It is hard for me to not laugh at this - it appears that you’re trying to insult me or something.
> 
> Hum, no. I think you don't know me well enough, then.
> 
> 
>> 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. :-)
> 
> Seems I don't, maybe that's my point. I'm involved in a lot of goes
> around LLVM for a long time. Maybe I'm really that blind... Or maybe
> it is hard to see, because of what goes behind doors.
> 
> When I discuss the kernel with people, everything is about Linus.
> Phrases go around like "if it's not in Linus' tree, it's not Linux".
> GCC has the same thing about its maintainers, and they have a much
> stronger control over their areas.
> 
> None of that seems to happen to any noticeable degree in LLVM. We had
> many changes done without so much as a warning and no amount of
> discussion has led folks to re-think their approach. That behaviour
> wasn't from a single leader, but from a variety of people with some
> degree of respect in their own areas.
> 
> Or, maybe, I'm so impossibly autistic, that all reality has failed to
> reach my cortex... If that's so, I'm surely not alone.
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> How large? I mean, if we really care about the community as a whole,
> and if the foundation is now the official representative of our
> community, wouldn't it be better if we could choose who represents us?
> 
> Because when this was an Apple project, we all knew we couldn't do
> much. But since it became widely used, companies and individuals
> started to trust that they, too, could have a say. It is, after all,
> open source in some way.
> 
> And in that respect, many have done so. Google, Sony, ARM, Qualcomm,
> Samsung are but a few of those companies that are now relying on LLVM,
> not Apple, to drive their products. I know of many others who are
> moving into it full speed. Most of them Chinese, and they don't share
> all your world views. Will we start refusing their technical
> contributions because of that? Even if they don't behave badly in the
> community, they may express their different views on the company web
> page. Where's the line?
> 
> If, on the other hand, the foundation became an elected body, then the
> whole community would feel represented, US, Europe and China (and
> others), and there would be no need to strong hand anything.

Renato,

If you want to start a discussion about the LLVM Foundation and issues you see with it, please feel free to start up a new thread. This isn’t related to the code of conduct.

-Tanya



> 
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev