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This discussion has been archived.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.
In Tulsa, Oklahoma, it is against the law to open a soda bottle without
the supervision of a licensed engineer.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Friday May 04 2018, @11:35PM (4 children)
Some of us feel that the toxicity brought by the CoC-crowd far outweighs that of an asshat who performs better-than-competent work, however.
All I'm advocating for here is tolerance of those technically skilled individuals who don't match the standards of the CoC crowd, as opposed to tolerance of those socially skilled individuals who don't match the technical standards of the software development project/crowd.
Does that sound hypocritical? Probably, but we're in the business (sometimes literally so) of producing good quality functioning code. Technical ability directly impacts that. Social ability secondly so. Therefore I place more importance on technical ability.
It's all on a spectrum though, as most things are. If you're too excessive an asshat your net worth will be negative and you should be asked to leave. As in, if the behaviour/words/changes you're bringing to the project cause more competence to leave, you should have the grace to sod off. That behaviour is something I've only observed from asshat developers, not asshat CoC-pushers however. Possibly because I stay clear of the latter so I'm not around to see them own up to their mistakes.
Anyway, it's the intolerance in the name of tolerance that really grinds my gears. It's false advertising and double-speak at its best.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Sunday May 06 2018, @07:27AM (3 children)
Yes. This was true for a long time. The socially maladept who just has the technical chops to get away with, well, whatever they want. Because they're just so darn good.
There was a passage in Saturn's Race by Niven and Barnes that explained it far more effectively than I possibly could. Fiction, yes, but it had a good ring of truth to it. The notion was that while in the past you could have stars-with-social-bristliness on a team who could be tolerated because of their quality of work. But in the future that pattern doesn't hold. Because those little issues end up disrupting the teamwork and there is no shortage of talent in the future. Your team-with-the-one-thorn will be beaten by the team that works together smoothly without the thorn. It will be interesting to see if that holds true.
When I first read that it scared the hell out of me. Because like a lot of people who become technically adept, I earn my technical chops exactly because I was socially maladept. I'm not always so good now, either, at the niceties of social grace when challenges are on the line. I have to work at it. So I do.
The weird part is that the best of the best that I know have no detectable problems with basic respect and sociality. I'm not talking talking-over-the-water-cooler. I'm talking about seeing others as people too.
But I'm not sure we're quite so much in disagreement. I recognize the desire to hold technical adeptness in first place. It can work. However, let's see how that holds up. Let's say you have an individual on your team who is a stone cold genius except that every time you interact with him at all he mentions something about those goddamn ______________'s who are screwing up the _________________. Pick any group name and any issue you would like, just so long as you personally know a and respect a member in that group and that the issue is one you care about. I can think of at least five different word pairs, most of them diametrically opposed. If you need help, make it a group your spouse (or child) is part of and the issue is a cause you would either give your life for or think is critical to the future of your children. Is that behavior acceptable? (If it is you've picked the wrong combination of words.) If it isn't, what is appropriate to do now?
Pick the right combination of words and you figure out if you are a human being or a robot.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Sunday May 06 2018, @08:11AM (2 children)
Tell him that arguing over this isn't what we're getting paid to do, and I'm not interested in hearing about it?
If he keeps up after that, he's obviously not the genius he's made out to be. It's not the topic that brings the conflict, it's the inability to shut up about it. See also some sports fans, particularly of opposing teams.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday May 07 2018, @02:00PM (1 child)
Not a bad answer, but this is a serious and hardcore xenophobe/misogynist/misandrist/transophobe/Cubs fan ( ;) ), and he or she won't stop. Yet they are the persons who can solve the problems that nobody else on the team can.
Anyway, I regret that CoC's are around as well. Because they shouldn't have to be, nor should Codes of Ethics where applicable. Yet they exist to define unacceptable behaviors that at root should have been socially corrected in Kindergarten or 1st grade. People should be able to figure out correct behavior simply from putting out what ethical principles are acceptable, but there are people who won't. Ulitmately they seem sadly necessary to me.
There's always the, "if you mind, find an environment that doesn't have one," possibility. Vice-versa is of course an option, but society sets an upper bound as to what will be allowable in any event. [eeoc.gov]
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday May 08 2018, @06:19AM
Then it's over to the dreaded "performance management" track, and/or for the leadership to decide who is more important to the company. If the person is such a key part, is getting said person to work remotely an option? Also, whoever hired the person in the first place needs to be had a chat with - either to ensure you don't hire that type again, or to ensure you only hire people like that/who can work with people like that.