Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday May 04 2018, @08:50AM   Printer-friendly
from the Nice-Big-CoC dept.

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."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @03:17PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @03:17PM (#675697)

    For five years you pay person A $100,000 a year and person B $20,000 a year. Then in year six you realize you were wrong, and if you simply bump person B to $100,000 a year you will never, ever offset the $400,000 advantage person A unfairly had. So you pay person B more than $100,000 a year until the gap is closed, or give them a $100,000 salary plus a $400,000 lump payment. Is that immoral?

    In this instance giving person B the $400,000 appears morally justified. There was a specific harm inflicted on person B and we can even put a dollar value on it. I think many people would agree and there is not too much to question about it.

    The moral arguments start when you give an unrelated third person ("person C") $400,000 because person C happens to have the same appearance as person B or whatever the situation may be.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bobthecimmerian on Friday May 04 2018, @08:25PM

    by bobthecimmerian (6834) on Friday May 04 2018, @08:25PM (#675834)

    Your argument only stands if the current market is a nearly perfect meritocracy. But it's not, so all available evidence is that persons C, D, E, and F are going to get the same shitty treatment that person D did.

    And I don't see the Anti-SJW Crusaders arguing that we should look up every woman, black, Latino, or otherwise that specifically got shit on by the tech industry and giving them money or assistance on a second chance.