[llvm-dev] I am leaving llvm

[via llvm-dev]

The thread topic is morphing (partly my fault) and probably should
become a new thread.
--paulr

> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
> Renato Golin via llvm-dev
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 7:03 AM
> To: Nicolai Hähnle
> Cc: LLVM Dev; Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] I am leaving llvm
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev