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

[Chris Lattner via llvm-dev]

> On May 5, 2016, at 9:54 PM, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote:
> 
> I think there's a big difference.
> 
> s/dictator/benevolent dictator
> 
> Why would wanting you to step up to be a benevolent dictator be
> concerning? "the community" isn't going to be a democracy and will
> settle for being a republic, but how that's even done isn't even
> decided yet.. Right now the whole thing is more like a "tribe"..  if
> you look at other projects which have a benevolent dictator, some are
> successful and responsibility just lies more on one person than
> others. Which frankly, most people should trust *you* to do the right
> thing, I would..

IMO, the best leaders rarely wield the power they have.  If the community always has conflicts that need to be resolved by a BD, then that is a pretty clear demonstration of the *unhealthiness* of the community.  It is much better for the community to be able to work through issues on its own, and call on a BD only in extreme circumstances.  I find Renato’s claims that I’m “uninvolved” in the community to be a really good sign, because that is the *perception* that I’m seeking, even if it has little to do with reality.

This is precisely why the CoC discussion was started as a discussion, not as a dictate.  I fully believe that the LLVM community is capable of working this out, and will be stronger for having done so.  Of course not everyone will be happy, but that really isn’t the goal.  The most telling sign of support on this topic is that this thread is populated with the extremely strong opinions of a very small number of people - the hundreds of other people in the community are already on board with the concept.

-Chris