llvm dev - May 2016 - Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct

On 5 May 2016 at 23:31, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
wrote:
> Code owners are the leaders in the LLVM community, and driving/guiding the
community *is* what they signed up for.  If we need to refine the wording around
that, then lets do that.
This is what *I* signed up for, and I try to do my best. But I know
people that didn't. I think we should refine the wording.

> It is hard for me to not laugh at this - it appears that you’re trying to
insult me or something.
Hum, no. I think you don't know me well enough, then.

>  Fortunately, I have a thick skin, but keep in mind that you have
absolutely no knowledge of how much time and energy I continue to put into LLVM.
:-)
Seems I don't, maybe that's my point. I'm involved in a lot of goes
around LLVM for a long time. Maybe I'm really that blind... Or maybe
it is hard to see, because of what goes behind doors.

When I discuss the kernel with people, everything is about Linus.
Phrases go around like "if it's not in Linus' tree, it's not
Linux".
GCC has the same thing about its maintainers, and they have a much
stronger control over their areas.

None of that seems to happen to any noticeable degree in LLVM. We had
many changes done without so much as a warning and no amount of
discussion has led folks to re-think their approach. That behaviour
wasn't from a single leader, but from a variety of people with some
degree of respect in their own areas.

Or, maybe, I'm so impossibly autistic, that all reality has failed to
reach my cortex... If that's so, I'm surely not alone.

> My personal involvement isn’t relevant to this discussion: the LLVM
foundation is a single legal entity that you’re looking for.  It exists in large
part because this *isn’t* about me, or any other single person.
How large? I mean, if we really care about the community as a whole,
and if the foundation is now the official representative of our
community, wouldn't it be better if we could choose who represents us?

Because when this was an Apple project, we all knew we couldn't do
much. But since it became widely used, companies and individuals
started to trust that they, too, could have a say. It is, after all,
open source in some way.

And in that respect, many have done so. Google, Sony, ARM, Qualcomm,
Samsung are but a few of those companies that are now relying on LLVM,
not Apple, to drive their products. I know of many others who are
moving into it full speed. Most of them Chinese, and they don't share
all your world views. Will we start refusing their technical
contributions because of that? Even if they don't behave badly in the
community, they may express their different views on the company web
page. Where's the line?

If, on the other hand, the foundation became an elected body, then the
whole community would feel represented, US, Europe and China (and
others), and there would be no need to strong hand anything.

cheers,
--renato

> On May 5, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On 5 May 2016 at 23:31, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>> Code owners are the leaders in the LLVM community, and driving/guiding
the community *is* what they signed up for.  If we need to refine the wording
around that, then lets do that.
> 
> This is what *I* signed up for, and I try to do my best. But I know
> people that didn't. I think we should refine the wording.
> 
> 
>> It is hard for me to not laugh at this - it appears that you’re trying
to insult me or something.
> 
> Hum, no. I think you don't know me well enough, then.
> 
> 
>> Fortunately, I have a thick skin, but keep in mind that you have
absolutely no knowledge of how much time and energy I continue to put into LLVM.
:-)
> 
> Seems I don't, maybe that's my point. I'm involved in a lot of
goes
> around LLVM for a long time. Maybe I'm really that blind... Or maybe
> it is hard to see, because of what goes behind doors.
> 
> When I discuss the kernel with people, everything is about Linus.
> Phrases go around like "if it's not in Linus' tree, it's
not Linux".
> GCC has the same thing about its maintainers, and they have a much
> stronger control over their areas.
> 
> None of that seems to happen to any noticeable degree in LLVM. We had
> many changes done without so much as a warning and no amount of
> discussion has led folks to re-think their approach. That behaviour
> wasn't from a single leader, but from a variety of people with some
> degree of respect in their own areas.
> 
> Or, maybe, I'm so impossibly autistic, that all reality has failed to
> reach my cortex... If that's so, I'm surely not alone.
> 
> 
>> My personal involvement isn’t relevant to this discussion: the LLVM
foundation is a single legal entity that you’re looking for.  It exists in large
part because this *isn’t* about me, or any other single person.
> 
> How large? I mean, if we really care about the community as a whole,
> and if the foundation is now the official representative of our
> community, wouldn't it be better if we could choose who represents us?
> 
> Because when this was an Apple project, we all knew we couldn't do
> much. But since it became widely used, companies and individuals
> started to trust that they, too, could have a say. It is, after all,
> open source in some way.
> 
> And in that respect, many have done so. Google, Sony, ARM, Qualcomm,
> Samsung are but a few of those companies that are now relying on LLVM,
> not Apple, to drive their products. I know of many others who are
> moving into it full speed. Most of them Chinese, and they don't share
> all your world views. Will we start refusing their technical
> contributions because of that? Even if they don't behave badly in the
> community, they may express their different views on the company web
> page. Where's the line?
> 
> If, on the other hand, the foundation became an elected body, then the
> whole community would feel represented, US, Europe and China (and
> others), and there would be no need to strong hand anything.
Renato,

If you want to start a discussion about the LLVM Foundation and issues you see
with it, please feel free to start up a new thread. This isn’t related to the
code of conduct.

-Tanya


> 
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On May 5, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
>> My personal involvement isn’t relevant to this discussion: the LLVM
foundation is a single legal entity that you’re looking for.  It exists in large
part because this *isn’t* about me, or any other single person.
> 
> How large? I mean, if we really care about the community as a whole,
Renato, I can only assure you that (for hopefully totally transparent reasons) I
have a deep amount of care for LLVM as a project, and I know that its long term
success is *ONLY* possible through a vibrant and awesome community as a whole.

I can only interpret your tone and approach as saying that you think someone or
some people are trying to nefariously harm the LLVM community.  While I have no
way to compel you to believe me, I really really do want the LLVM community to
be vibrant and awesome, and it makes me sad that you apparently assume
otherwise.

-Chris

On 6 May 2016 at 00:35, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
wrote:
> Renato, I can only assure you that (for hopefully totally transparent
reasons) I have a deep amount of care for LLVM as a project, and I know that its
long term success is *ONLY* possible through a vibrant and awesome community as
a whole.
I never assumed otherwise. I was just referring to the apparent actions.

> I can only interpret your tone and approach as saying that you think
someone or some people are trying to nefariously harm the LLVM community.
Absolutely not. I'm saying it's easy for a large group of people to
impose a way of thinking that might not be the only good one because
of confirmation bias. No nefarious intentions necessary.

I hope I'm not making it worse again...

--renato

> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
Chris
> Lattner via llvm-dev
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 4:36 PM
> To: Renato Golin
> Cc: llvm-dev
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM
> code of conduct
> 
> On May 5, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> >> My personal involvement isn’t relevant to this discussion: the
LLVM
> foundation is a single legal entity that you’re looking for.  It exists in
> large part because this *isn’t* about me, or any other single person.
> >
> > How large? I mean, if we really care about the community as a whole,
> 
> Renato, I can only assure you that (for hopefully totally transparent
> reasons) I have a deep amount of care for LLVM as a project, and I know
> that its long term success is *ONLY* possible through a vibrant and
> awesome community as a whole.
> 
> I can only interpret your tone and approach as saying that you think
> someone or some people are trying to nefariously harm the LLVM community.
> While I have no way to compel you to believe me, I really really do want
> the LLVM community to be vibrant and awesome, and it makes me sad that you
> apparently assume otherwise.
> 
> -Chris
I don't read it as "nefariously harm" so much as ex-nihilo
asserting
a Foundation exists and has some kind of control over the community
(e.g., insisting on a CoC).  Even if we all believe those in control 
are entirely benevolent (and I see no evidence to the contrary), it's 
still pretty disconcerting in terms of process.
--paulr
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On 6 May 2016 at 00:34, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org>
wrote:
> If you want to start a discussion about the LLVM Foundation and issues you
see with it, please feel free to start up a new thread. This isn’t related to
the code of conduct.
Sorry, we can discuss this another time.

--renato