llvm dev - Jun 2014 - [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [ADVERTISEMENT] open positions in Apple's Swift compiler team

Dear All,

Historically, we *have* permitted job announcements for jobs that 
require or desire expertise with LLVM or one of it's sub-projects.  To 
the best of my knowledge, we've never required that the position 
announcement state that the job will contribute directly to the LLVM 
project (or its sub-projects) or that the code created by the position 
be open source.

As an example, please see 
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-May/072938.html and 
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-August/033695.html.

Using this criteria, I believe that Ted's post is on-topic (although I 
agree that it should have stated the connection with LLVM more prominently).

If there is now an official policy that I've overlooked stating 
otherwise, please let me know.

Regards,

John Criswell


On 6/11/14, 8:39 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com 
> <mailto:kremenek at apple.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Jun 10, 2014, at 5:36 PM, C. Bergström
>     <cbergstrom at pathscale.com <mailto:cbergstrom at
pathscale.com>> wrote:
>
>     > On 06/11/14 06:58 AM, Ted Kremenek wrote:
>     >> ** NOTE: This is a compiler job announcement. **
>     >>
>     >> The Apple Source Languages team is looking for exceptional
>     engineers to work on the Swift programming language:
>     > Maybe this has been asked already and I missed it - Will Swift
>     be open source?
>
>     At this time, we honestly don't know the answer yet to that
question.
>
>
> Ted, we've routinely pushed back strongly against job postings for 
> compiler jobs that aren't specifically working on LLVM, Clang, or some 
> other part of the LLVM project.
>
> If Swift ends up open source, and if it ends up as part of the LLVM 
> project (neither of which seem clear as you say), only then would it 
> seem appropriate to send this kind of job ad email to these lists.
>
> This is the second off-topic job posting in the last few weeks, so I'm 
> particularly sensitive. I really don't want the lists to become 
> cluttered here.
>
> Thanks,
> -Chandler
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140611/42a39542/attachment.html>

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:59 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>
wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Historically, we *have* permitted job announcements for jobs that require
> or desire expertise with LLVM or one of it's sub-projects.  To the best
of
> my knowledge, we've never required that the position announcement state
> that the job will contribute directly to the LLVM project (or its
> sub-projects) or that the code created by the position be open source.
>
> As an example, please see
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-May/072938.html and
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-August/033695.html.
>
> Using this criteria, I believe that Ted's post is on-topic (although I
> agree that it should have stated the connection with LLVM more
prominently).
>
The connection or relevance of LLVM experience really isn't clear...
"Familiarity
with LLVM or Clang a plus, but not required." makes it seem like it is not
terribly relevant, which was the source of my concern.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140611/641e9a94/attachment.html>

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 09:59:19AM -0500, John Criswell
wrote:
> Historically, we *have* permitted job announcements for jobs that
> require or desire expertise with LLVM or one of it's sub-projects.
> To the best of my knowledge, we've never required that the position
> announcement state that the job will contribute directly to the LLVM
> project (or its sub-projects) or that the code created by the
> position be open source.
> 
> As an example, please see
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-May/072938.html and
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-August/033695.html.
> 
> Using this criteria, I believe that Ted's post is on-topic (although
> I agree that it should have stated the connection with LLVM more
> prominently).
> 
> If there is now an official policy that I've overlooked stating
> otherwise, please let me know.
I'm not sure we have one, so it might be a good idea to sit down and
really finalize it. I have tried to write down the criteria *I* consider
acceptable in

http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-June/073497.html

Joerg

Either you're being disingenuous are truly looking to confuse a 
situation only someone ignorant of what LLVM could ever misconstrue.

Why  would Apple dump hundreds of millions in R&D with Clang/LLVM, 
create Swift and introduce it to everyone and the press for WWDC 2014, 
followed up by posting on the LLVM list only to be moving away from LLVM?

More importantly, who appointed you e-mail monitor on what is or is not 
appropriate dialogues to have for a project that clearly several 
corporate members have an enormous stake in building, especially Apple?

- Marc


On 06/11/2014 08:03 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:59 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu
> <mailto:criswell at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>
>     Dear All,
>
>     Historically, we *have* permitted job announcements for jobs that
>     require or desire expertise with LLVM or one of it's
>     sub-projects.  To the best of my knowledge, we've never required
>     that the position announcement state that the job will contribute
>     directly to the LLVM project (or its sub-projects) or that the
>     code created by the position be open source.
>
>     As an example, please see
>     http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-May/072938.html
>     and
>     http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-August/033695.html.
>
>     Using this criteria, I believe that Ted's post is on-topic
>     (although I agree that it should have stated the connection with
>     LLVM more prominently).
>
>
> The connection or relevance of LLVM experience really isn't clear... 
> "Familiarity with LLVM or Clang a plus, but not required." makes
it
> seem like it is not terribly relevant, which was the source of my concern.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-- 
Marc J. Driftmeyer
Email :: mjd at reanimality.com <mailto:mjd at reanimality.com>
Web :: http://www.reanimality.com
Cell :: (509) 435-5212
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140612/38a1d3d0/attachment.html>