Slashdot Mirror
One Of LLVM's Top Contributors Quits Development Over Code of Conduct, Outreach Program (phoronix.com)
Rafael Avila de Espindola is the fifth most active contributor to LLVM with more than 4,300 commits since 2006, but now he has decided to part ways with the project. From a report: Rafael posted a rather lengthy mailing list message to fellow LLVM developers today entitled I am leaving llvm. He says the reason for abandoning LLVM development after 12 years is due to changes in the community. In particular, the "social injustice" brought on the organization's new LLVM Code of Conduct and its decision to participate in this year's Outreachy program to encourage women and other minority groups to get involved with free software development. "I am definitely sad to lose Rafael from the LLVM project, but it is critical to the long term health of the project that we preserve an inclusive community. I applaud Rafael for standing by his personal principles, this must have been a hard decision," Chris Lattner, tweeted Thursday.
The requirements to be able to contributed to a project should be based on merit alone.
Why would you treat someone as an equal or with respect just because they have boobs or have a certain skin color? Very odd. People should be treated as equals and/or with respect if they deserve to be based on their behavior. I wouldn't treat Donald Trump with respect, because he doesn't deserve it. It doesn't matter if he has boobs or if his skin color was different.
It upsets some people because you're assuming that the under-representation is due to some flaw which needs to be corrected. i.e. You're assuming correlation implies causation. Applying the scientific method, the under-representation merely suggests that discrimination may be to blame, but is not proof in itself. One would need to first prove that the under-representation is caused by discrimination, before corrective action is justified. But instead, the under-representation itself is incorrectly being used as "evidence" that corrective action is necessary.
Also your corrective action is blatant favoritism which would be decried as evil and discriminatory if it went the other way. i.e. You're trying to fight one type of discrimination by encouraging a different type of discrimination. This accomplishes the primary goal, e.g. getting people to realize it's wrong to discriminate against women. But it has the unfortunate side-effect of making some people conclude it's OK to discriminate against men. So you're not exactly reducing discrimination, you just replacing one type with another. And your corrective action will result in a long-term oscillation between different forms of discrimination, with no real reduction in the absolute total amount of discrimination. If you want to teach people that discrimination is wrong, you can't do it with programs which encourage different types of discrimination.
If that is "the point" then why doesn't it say that in the CoC? I do love your addition about "slightly more so" though. We are all equal, but some people are more equal than others I guess. Truly Orwellian.
"If you can't effectively call out someone's idiocy without mentioning their their race or gender"
Huh? Who said anything about doing that?
"In addition, if you can't call someone's idiocy in a social setting without being unnecessarily cruel and disrespectful"
Huh? Who said anything about that? You SJW types are really truly scary.
The highest contributor is Chris Lattner. I'm willing to bet he's the founder/leader of llvm. I also willing bet it's his wife/girlfriend/sister/unspecified_relative Tanya Lattner who is responsible for this bullshit. It was her, after all, who wanted to partner up with that puke-inducing Outreachy organization that specifically discriminates against whites or cisgendered men. I don't see her name on that list of top contributors in TFA, so I suppose this is how she contributes to the project instead?
May this project crash, burn and rise from its ashes as a fork run by a meritocratically-minded group where the only property of your skin that matters is its thickness, your gender is only a problem if you make it one, and the only disability that gets you sympathy is RSI.
So you are all for discrimination against disfavored groups, as long as they're the groups you disfavor?
The problem is that the sentence reads exactly the same whether you use the word 'reverse' in it or not.
This is bullshit, and you know it. First of all, having to explicitly agree to this to attend a conference is like having to pledge allegiance every time to get food in a mess hall (as mocked so brilliantly in Catch-22 — great read).
How would like you like a daily popup on /. asking you to promise not to molest children today? Your probably would not... But, if you can't agree to that (much lower!) minimum standard of behavior, why should you be allowed to have Internet?
Seriously, like most corporations, LLVM has no separation of powers. The same people writing the Code of Conduct, are the ones enforcing it... Having it simply gives them a weapon to enforce their point of view.
And we know — from their choosing to associate with the trash like Outreachy — what that point of view is...
"Common sense is not too common" goes the saying. The code asks you to be "respectful" — what does it mean? If one were to show up to a conference in a T-shirt with a picture of AR-15, or a portrait of President Trump, would that be Ok? I've worked with people IRL, who'd file a complaint with Human Resources over such a thing — because they'd "feel unsafe". And it could get worse!
Likewise, what if a woman encounters an obvious man in a female bathroom — because he is "genderfluid" and felt feminine at the moment the nature called? Would the woman's negative reaction be "disrespectful"? By the standards of the Social Justice assholes, who'd consider yoga practice to be racist, it certainly would be...
We've been slowly boiled by these asshole for years. This man is a hero for raising awareness of this growing threat to our freedom.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
But this CoC goes much further than just prohibiting insults. It's a direct assault on certain political, religious, philosophical beliefs and attitudes that one may hold and espouse outside of the project.
For instance, the welcoming clause mentions supporting everyone regardless of their "immigration status". I assume that means if your status is considered to be illegal (or undocumented if you prefer) you are still welcome in the project. But suppose there is an LLVM developer who is politically opposed to DACA (in the US) and supports a moratorium on taking in refugees from certain countries with majority Muslim populations. And suppose that LLVM developer has contributed money to PAC's and political campaigns in support of his position on those issues. And also suppose that - using his real name on the internet - he posts messages on various social media platforms that espouse said political positions. And also suppose that he's never once made a statement about immigration at any LLVM conference, or on any LLVM mailing list, or irc channel, or any other LLVM community venue. IOW, he's completely separated his political view on immigration from his work and communications with others in the LLVM community. He kept it separate until that one time when he was asked about his views by another developer at a LLVM conference who happened to be involved in immigration activism and truthfully explained his position.
My question: Did the LLVM developer commit a CoC violation?