SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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 a museum in Havana, there are two skulls of Christopher Columbus,
"one when he was a boy and one when he was a man."
-- Mark Twain
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 04 2018, @05:17PM (5 children)
Yes, that would be immoral. For starters, you have forgotten that your company doesn't depend on just those two people. You have also forgotten that your company isn't in the business of social justice warrioring.
In year six, you SHOULD BE paying everyone in the company precisely what they are worth. The asshole that you overpaid for the first five years? You can always fire him. Get rid of him somehow. But, you might just get rid of yourself, too.
After all the handwringing, confessions, apologies, etc, everyone should be getting the pay they are worth. Your drama scenarios aren't even worthy of consideration.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bobthecimmerian on Friday May 04 2018, @08:29PM (4 children)
The point is that the industry hasn't been paying non-whites and non-males what they're worth for decades, when we didn't have these Codes of Conduct and assistance programs. So if the problem was going to fix itself naturally, it would have done it already.
There is this crazy fantasy that the tech industry is a near perfect meritocracy. It's a game of chance, and being a white male - and I am one - up until now has meant you're playing with loaded dice. You can either dig up everyone that the industry screwed over that isn't white or isn't male and then give them lots of money and offer them another job, or you can help the next generation. Arguing against both is just: "It's your fault not being born a white man, don't blame me if your tech career didn't take off as a result. Choose better next time."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by slinches on Friday May 04 2018, @08:56PM
There are ways to help those who are underserved by the current system without outright discrimination. Go rally support around those and you'll get a lot of takers. Or you can try to fight racism/sexism with more racism/sexism, but don't expect those you are discriminating against to help you do so.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 04 2018, @11:10PM (1 child)
What slinches said. You can't beat racism with racism. War lies in that directions. And, you are justifying assholes like Richard Spencer.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Wednesday May 09 2018, @10:59AM
Every cause on every side has a ton of assholes. So the fact that Richard Spencer may be a dick is irrelevant.
And the point I keep making, which you and slinches keep sidestepping, is that the current environment fundamentally gives white men an edge, even today. So an extra scholarship, extra mentorship, and so forth for other people levels the playing field.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Monday May 07 2018, @12:30PM
One of my former colleagues at Cambridge ran summer schools to give 16-year-old children an opportunity to learn computer science outside of school. He contacted a number of schools and each was allowed to send up to two children along. The first years was around 95% male. He asked the schools why this was, and received 'girls can't code' as a reply from more than one. The second year, he said that each school must send at least one girl if they sent anyone (so they could send one girl, two girls, or one girl and one boy). That year, the gender balance was around 60% female and there was no noticeable change in ability. The vast majority of the girls who attended would simply have been deselected by their schools on the grounds of gender without this policy.
Programmes like Outreachy are attempting to provide a counterbalance to this. They can't provide girls with the same opportunities that the boys got, but they are attempting to provide some equivalence. Unfortunately, equality of opportunity isn't something that everyone agrees is a good idea.
sudo mod me up