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

[C Bergström via llvm-dev]

>>   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..