SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Rafael Avila de Espindola, one of the top contributors to the LLVM compiler toolset, has cut ties with the open source project over what he perceives as code of conduct hypocrisy and support for ethnic favoritism. In a message posted to the LLVM mailing list, de Espindola said he was leaving immediately and cited changes in the community.
LLVM project founder, Chris Lattner responded; "I applaud Rafael for standing by his personal principles, this must have been a hard decision." Lattner also insisted that "it is critical to the long term health of the project that we preserve an inclusive community."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
LLVM Contributor Quits Citing Inclusivity Intolerance
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 143 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
If little else, the brain is an educational toy.
-- Tom Robbins
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Lester on Friday May 04 2018, @12:19PM (12 children)
I agree. Those points are just common courtesy.
Just nitpicking, the only point debatable is the one I have marked. The other points are quite clear and most people "Yes, that's a threat, a insult, doxing, sexual or violent material", but when I joke is nice or discriminatory is many times debatable. Who decides? etc. But, as I said before, just common courtesy
Probably, the problem is other. Rafael Avila said he has bad experiences about CoC. I think he feels that this CoC is only the beginning.
I can understand him. To start with, Why do they need a CoC? have been there many inappropriate messages in the list? So if list was working well and someone comes up with a CoC that hasn't been need so far (we write a CoC "just in case") , it will be expanded ("just in case") and the end is that CoC, and so project, will be taken over by SJW, that have time to do such things because they don't waste time coding.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Friday May 04 2018, @12:53PM (10 children)
The reason I would do it - is so that if someone is being an asshat, one has a document to point at to justify whatever sanctions. It is harder to say "you are being an asshat so we are going to sack you" than to say "you have breached this and that item in our CoC so we are going to sack you". "Asshat" is ill-defined and arguable whereas the CoC is less so.
(Score: 2) by Lester on Friday May 04 2018, @02:26PM (1 child)
That is the logical reason of existence of a CoC. If things stop there, fine. The danger is that CoC may become a cargo cult, with every body fighting for it
Rules (written or unwritten) are politics. Politics are necessary, but politics take time, so every organization should have only the minimum politics (that is why "Benevolent Dictator for Life" is so efficient). Most people, me for example, don't like to devote long time to politics, so let other people waste their time on politics. When people see a debate on TV, they change of channel and when I said everybody fighting for it, in fact it is a relative small group of people. The final result may be that those who do less and devote more time to politics are the ones who mark the policy of the organization. In OSS, SJW have found a place to play.
That is what I think Rafael Avila is afraid of. That it is just the beginning. He says he has seen that path in other projects.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Saturday May 05 2018, @05:55AM
Of course. The people who are going from project to project and agitating for CoCs already have the "Diversity and Inclusion" initiatives from those other projects already ready to impose. They have all of the arguments from previous projects how the "Inclusion initiatives" are required to give the "spirit of the CoC meaning" and all that other $current_year babble. The people pushing these are a hostile force, they do not care about the projects they infect and could care less if they destroy most of them. Any entity not under their control is an enemy, any though occurring that they do not police is a danger.
And consider this. No SJW converged entity has ever been cleansed. Not just in software, none. Ever. They themselves would gleefully destroy any that appeared to be slipping from their grasp so there is no point even trying. When they consume one the only rational response is to, after having fought the takeover with maximum effort, quickly abandon it. Most software projects do not have a lot of resources that can't be quickly replicated, even the name is something everyone is by now accustomed to having change. Fork em and move on. Unlike say the Boy Scouts, who have extensive resources and history but the same solution applies, as painful as it might be you have to just let it go and fork.
The SJW locust produces nothing of value, deprive them of your contributions and that will quickly become apparent. And after the fork establish a simple CoC that simply says:
1. Be excellent.
2. Don't be a jerk, we don't want to ban anyone who is contributing but we also don't want to have to stop our own work to teach you basic social skills either.
3. We are working here. A few offtopic posts, lulz, bantz, etc. is a cultural tradition that fosters our community but there is a place for flamewars and other offtopic crap. 4chan. Use it.
4. Anyone proposing a change to this document is banished for life from {name of project}.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Friday May 04 2018, @02:58PM (4 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @04:35PM (3 children)
Hopefully we'll never work at the same place. Ever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @06:33PM
Is that because you're the asshat who writes good code or the asshat who writes CoC's and mission statements?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @09:59PM
No risk of that, my company doesn't hire transsexuals.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Arik on Saturday May 05 2018, @04:05AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by loonycyborg on Friday May 04 2018, @04:21PM
That is just a good path for even more dramas stemming from rules-lawyering. Because in most cases that would be just smartasses trying to bend those rules for maximum mischief. Childish and counter-productive behavior can be already be stemmed by moderators of mailing lists and other public places. If this is not enough for a particular project then CoC will make things only worse.
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Saturday May 05 2018, @03:53AM (1 child)
> "Asshat" is ill-defined and arguable whereas the CoC is less so.
And you think "discrimination" isn't ill-defined? You should be thankful you haven't met one of these mighty warriors. They make Cardinal Richelieu look like a pansy. The Cardinal needed six written words to condemn an honest men; a righteous warrior needs only that you exist.
I'm not even joking. Your very existence exudes privilege and if you aren't groveling for the under-privileged, you are an enabler discriminating against minorities.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Saturday May 05 2018, @12:05PM
In UK "discrimination" is pretty well defined in law.
https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights [www.gov.uk]
(Score: 2) by driverless on Sunday May 06 2018, @03:44AM
Those points are sufficiently elastic that virtually anything that someone regards as common courtesy are violent assault or similar to someone else. For starters, "holding a door open for the person behind you" is "non-contact rape" to some SJWs. So you've gone from "common courtesy" to "rape" in a single jump, and both describe the same action. By not defining, or even giving examples, of what permitted and non-permitted behaviour is, all the above list is doing is giving the SJWs a hitlist that they can apply to anyone they don't like.
For another, unrelated, example, read the constitution of the Soviet Union. It's actually very reasonable, in some cases better than the US one. However, would you rather live in the US or under Stalin and the Soviet constitution? It's all a matter of interpretation.