[llvm-dev] I am leaving llvm

[Chris Lattner via llvm-dev]

I generally agree, but a couple of specific clarifications below:

On May 8, 2018, at 4:03 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.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).

Right.  The CoC has already been extensively discussed.  Though it didn’t receive unanimous approval, we achieved consensus, which is the best we can hope for with such a delightfully diverse community.

>> 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.
> 
> 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.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here.  There isn’t a lot of traffic on that list, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t many members, and it doesn’t make it the wrong forum for specific discussions and questions about the foundation and its priorities.  The fact that there aren’t more questions on that list is a bug, not a feature.

You seem to have a lot of questions and concerns about the foundation, but haven’t voiced them on that list.  Why not?  I’d rather have you get them out in the open (in the appropriate forum) than have them lurking below the surface, feeling unanswered, and leaving you dissatisfied.  There is no solution to this aside from openness and transparency, and we have a venue that welcomes that for foundation discussions.  Anyone who is interested in “what the foundation focuses on” should sign up for that list!

> 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.

You are implying this is not the case.  Please start a thread on the foundation list explaining what you’d like to see.  Understand that the Foundation is legally obligated to transparency on many levels by its IRS “for the public good” status.  We are serious about fulfilling those obligations.

> 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.

It might surprise you, but I believe in openness and transparency and the foundation has nothing to hide.  If you’d like to have a conversation, I welcome you to start it, just use the right forum.  llvm-dev is about compiler engineering, it is not about foundation policies.  Anyone on this list can join the foundation list (and many have!) so please stop acting like there is some artificial divide and just do the right thing to keep the discussion on topic for the purpose of the lists we already have.

-Chris