[llvm-dev] I am leaving llvm

[Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev]

> On May 8, 2018, at 4:03 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 


Any intern sponsored by any channel goes through all the same process of getting patches accepted to LLVM. There is nothing special here. Please do not imply that any special treatment is being given because of the program.

-Tanya


> 
> 
> 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