[llvm-foundation] Voting

Hal Finkel via llvm-foundation llvm-foundation at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jun 29 15:15:08 PDT 2016


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org>
> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> Cc: llvm-foundation at lists.llvm.org, "Alex Bradbury" <asb at asbradbury.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 3:16:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [llvm-foundation] Voting
> 
> On 29 June 2016 at 20:46, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> > I disagree, and I think this highlights the issue. I suspect that,
> > if we actually took all of the active participants in the LLVM
> > community and forced them to vote (even if that included an option
> > to abstain), we might very well find that we had consensus on the
> > code-of-conduct issues. You can't determine consensus by counting
> > emails on the mailing list, it is just not accurate. There are
> > practical constraints and social disincentives to sending "voting"
> > emails. Some people will send a "+1" on some issues, but many will
> > not. To determine consensus, we need to vote (either directly or
> > via representatives/proxies).
> 
> You have exposed the problems in my view, and I accept that. But do
> you accept that direct voting, lobbying and campaigning will lead to
> fracturing problems, dividing the community just like we see in
> Debian, *BSD and others?

I agree. As I stated explicitly, I do not think that direct voting works well, in general, outside of small groups. I'm quite happy that LLVM is not a small group.

> 
> The code of conduct was approached twice in the period a year, and
> that highlights how people are trying to solve it. I believe that the
> second time we had less friction, and I also believe that folks were
> a
> bit more open to my concerns, we had less aggressive and more
> constructive responses. The concerns around the language of reporting
> were made clearer, and I believe Chandler is aware of why we feel
> strongly in that way. I'm confident that, if we keep doing this,
> we'll
> reach consensus.
> 
> In this case specifically, "voting" would alienate the minority,
> which
> is *precisely* the opposite of what the code was trying to do.
> 
> All in all, the code still wasn't necessary, and I think most would
> agree that it won't be for the foreseeable future. All problems that
> happened that the code could have helped were dealt with directly and
> effectively without it.
> 
> Having a code is good, rushing a code, through vote, that *knowingly*
> alienates part of the community, is not.
> 
> 
> > The other point about voting, which is not to be overlooked, is
> > that Pareto optimal is neither, in general, globally optimal nor
> > strategically wise. This is one reason why leadership is
> > important.
> 
> There are many types of leadership, not all of them beneficial.

Certainly.

Thanks again,
Hal

> I
> again ask you to consider your points in a global setting and
> appreciate the falacies it entails, just as much as my views..
>
> 
> So far, our model has worked well. I don't see any glaring issues to
> warrant a sudden change, nor I think we should change just because.
> 
> --renato
> 

-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory


More information about the llvm-foundation mailing list