[llvm-dev] I am leaving llvm

On 2 May 2018 at 17:37, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Summary: > > I am leaving llvm effectively immediately. I am sorry for any > inconvenience this may cause. Hi Rafael, Against better judgement, and for what it's worth, here's my view. We have had heated technical discussions in the past and now that you leave, I realised how much I cherished them. I have also distanced myself from the project for similar reasons, but I have been convinced by other parties that LLVM is bigger than its individual contributions (both in code and behaviour), so I will continue here, trying to make it a better place, for I have good friends here and I also cherish them. > Unfortunately the last few years haven't been the same. On the > technical side llvm now feels far bigger and slower to change. There > are many incomplete transitions. That, by itself, would not be > sufficient reason to leave. llvm still seems better than the > competition and lld itself is still awesome. True to all big projects and we both knew this would happen. :) > The community change I cannot take is how the social injustice > movement has permeated it. When I joined llvm no one asked or cared > about my religion or political view. We all seemed committed to just > writing a good compiler framework. You'll see that this is not an LLVM trend, but a world wide trend and that's not a bad thing. It is, and I wholeheartedly agree, an exaggerated and poisonous trend, but it's a response to an even more poisonous history and one that needed a change. History is not stable, nor it's a steady progression. History happens in hiccups, step-function-like sudden increases in pressure, which are then followed by attenuated periodic function. This is one of them. More importantly, history tramples on people *every* time. Just different events trample on different people. There's no way to avoid this. > Somewhat recently a code of conduct was adopted. It says that the > community tries to welcome people of all "political belief". Except > those whose political belief mean that they don't agree with the code > of conduct. Since agreement is required to take part in the > conferences, I am no longer able to attend. I defended your point of view in the code of conduct, but I have come to accept what it is, not what it says. The code is just a statement and have not changed how we behave (I don't think you would ever be kicked out of a conference). What I could not change and still fear is the report policy, which leaves no room for the accused to defend itself, or even know it's been accused. But that's not a discussion for this thread. However, the main point here is why we have it and who is doing it. I know Chandler and Tanya for a while and, while I do not speak for them, I trust them to *want* to do the right thing (tm). If they miss the mark, or make mistakes, I'd first point out to them, not assume ill intent. This has been my personal experience and I have no reason to change behaviour. But the code of conduct is a defence against two evils: the rare bigot and the rare SJW. By having the code, we can more easily curb bigots but also appease SJW to not poison our community. For what it's worth, so far, I have found the LLVM community fair and just on how it treats its citizens, as I have myself fell foul from ill behaviour of other members and that has been solved decently and properly. > The last drop was llvm associating itself with an organization that > openly discriminates based on sex and ancestry (1,2). This goes > directly against my ethical views and I think I must leave the project > to not be associated with this. I agree with you that Outreachy is discriminatory and LLVM does not need it, but again, this is a different discussion for a different list. I believe efforts like GSOC are better fit for our project, for AFAIK they are inclusive to all, and technically sound, but I also know they are scarce. In the past, John Maddog Hall tried to create a similar effort for hacking Arm boards, sponsored by big companies, especially tailored to developing countries. It did not work. It's really hard to find places that will fund developers, especially young ones and the ones that have no other opportunity. But we have to be careful with whom sponsors our devs and why. However, again, the point here is: As far as I know Tanya, she had only have good intentions towards the LLVM community. I truly believe the "fix" for this problem is: let's talk. Not here, this is the dev list, but let's create a place where we can discuss these things. On a personal note... It really saddens me that you would leave a technical project because of social reasons. I have been battling social injustice my whole life (towards myself and others) because of my utter incompetence in understanding the social code (Autism), and this is one of the days that we all lose. I know this hasn't been an easy decision, and this is what makes it so unjust. Social pressure is real, and has real side effects. Let's discuss this off-list, I really think we can fix this. cheers, --renato