[llvm-dev] I am leaving llvm

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

On 8 May 2018 at 10:03, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at gmail.com> wrote:
> The code of conduct discussions are IMHO mostly annoying bikeshedding that
> brings out the worst in people, so I'd personally be happy if they happened
> on the foundation mailing list so I don't see them, even if they technically
> don't belong there ;)

The code affects us all, on digital and physical form, as it's
supposed to be applied to the whole community.

There was an initial discussion off-list, but the final round (which
was long and painful) had to happen on the dev list (and it did).


> The question of how to ensure that the foundation ends up representing the
> community is a particularly interesting one because representing the
> community is not a goal of the foundation, and it probably shouldn't be.

Perhaps I used the wrong word here. I did not mean representation in
the political sense, which you're right, there was no vote.

What I means was indirect representation. If an Outreachy developer
ends up sponsored to push patches in LLVM as a request from the
foundation, then, well, the foundation is changing how the community
represents itself.



But none of that was my point.

The foundation list is empty and discussions there don't catch wind of
all the developers (in the end, our entire community), and can form
the wrong consensus via echo chamber. In all mentioned discussions,
foundation board members said so, themselves.

Practicalities can be solved there, but unless there is a large enough
volume of evidence (built by discussing on the dev list), the
foundation would be smart not to take anyone's word alone on that
list, over serious matters.

Over the past few years, I have learnt and embraced the motto of my
good friend Ryan Arnold (glibc guy): trust, but verify.

I trust the foundation to wish the best over the LLVM project and to
do what it can to foster it and make it more professional, inclusive,
etc.

But without a verification process, the foundation can be victim of
its own shortsightedness (we all are), and when that can affect
hundreds of developers over dozens of different cultures, it can
become a serious matter.

Sending an email to the foundation list is *not* enough.

There has to be a process, where the community can raise concerns, and
there will be a trail to make sure the development and decisions still
reflect the community.

I'm sure the foundation board will echo this sentiment, as they don't
want to change our ways, they just want to work on the background so
that we can focus on the actual code.

But for that to happen, we need transparency and a verification process.

-- 
cheers,
--renato