[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Status of SEH?

Alp Toker
Fri, 31 Jan 2014 00:08:48 -0000

On 30/01/2014 22:57, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
>> On 30/01/2014 22:06, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>> Actually, the policy actually says the right thing, you removed  a
>>> sentence, which says:
>>> "Please contact the oversight group for more details."
>>
>> To be clear, I didn't remove this sentence -- it's some way
down in the
>> paragraph and pertains to receiving details from the oversight group,
>> whereas the section about providing notification pertains to
"us", the LLVM
>> community.
>>
>> This is grammatically clear and unambiguous so if it's not the
intention,
>> that needs to be reworded.
> Don't take this the wrong way, but most people would still understand
> that this probably means "don't talk about patents except to the
> oversight group".

Hi Dan,

I'm not sure if you realize, but that paragraph reads as an open
invitation to notify and discuss patents on the development and commits
lists.

> There are roughly no open source projects where the
> rule is "talk about patents all you like on random development mailing
> lists"

There are plenty of projects around the world the where that is
absolutely the rule.

Your remarks suggest that you've worked on a limited range of projects
without the perspective it takes to accurately word a developer policy
like this for an international audience.

"Most people" doesn't cut it here and we need to set out our
expectations explicitly before we start turning away new contributors
and telling them to "hit the road" for something they said.

I can't stand by while new contributors receive abuse for some violation
of a rule that's not even written in the LLVM developer policy.

We should assume that contributors come from a background that's varied,
inclusive and different to the norms in our immediate circles, and aim
to provide them with accurate and helpful guidance in the developer
policy and reflects our expectations. Flaming people when they try to
engage our community because they have a different legal system or
interpretation.

What next, turn people away because they have a funny name? Reject
patches because their skin color is different to yours? I'm disappointed
that you've tried to defend what is clearly repeated and inexcusable
behaviour by Chandler towards people who are graciously trying to help
out. In so far as there is a community, we must stand up distance
ourselves from behaviour like that.

(This is becoming OT for cfe-dev, moving the thread to llvm-dev. Let's
refocus into a more productive mode and and roll a patch already?)

Alp.


--
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts