Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Of LLVM's Top Contributors Quits Development Over CoC, Outreach Program

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
    It is pretty hideous if you ask me. It effectivly makes it impossible to agressively deal with idiots.
    .
    That is the whole problem in a nut shell. The long list just gives non preformers a way to stay in the community at the expense of people actually contributing.


    The problem here is that a person actively contributing to a project can actively looses respect for those dragging the project down. As such it isnt unreasonable to express your anger with such people. The sad reality is this, not everyone involved in software developement has the chops to support a project. As such they either need to be encourafed to improve themselves or they need to get out. Frankly it is the so called offensive speach these policies guard against that can make low performers decide what they want to do.

    In a nut shell if a person wants respect - PERFORM.

    On the flip side there are very racist and sexist people out there. Such policies do nothing to change behaviors of such prople so i really dont see the point of having such policies in the first place.
    Grown adults on the Internet don't aggressively deal with software developers [and classify them as idiots], but you use your legal departments to manage such personnel.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
      It is pretty hideous if you ask me. It effectivly makes it impossible to agressively deal with idiots.
      .
      That is the whole problem in a nut shell. The long list just gives non preformers a way to stay in the community at the expense of people actually contributing.


      The problem here is that a person actively contributing to a project can actively looses respect for those dragging the project down. As such it isnt unreasonable to express your anger with such people. The sad reality is this, not everyone involved in software developement has the chops to support a project. As such they either need to be encourafed to improve themselves or they need to get out. Frankly it is the so called offensive speach these policies guard against that can make low performers decide what they want to do.

      In a nut shell if a person wants respect - PERFORM.

      On the flip side there are very racist and sexist people out there. Such policies do nothing to change behaviors of such prople so i really dont see the point of having such policies in the first place.
      In a fucking nutshell, ``These are contributors of their own free will, and their employers wallets'' and not employees of LLVM Community. However, the financial creation of the LLVM Community is from Apple, Google, MSFT, IBM, etc., and they all have standard bylaws for code of conduct. Don't like, then build your own competing compiler suite.

      What's that? No one would give two shits to use it? Thought not. So suck it up, act like respectable adults and drop this machismo Thomas Paine, out-of-context Meritocracy bull shit.

      Comment


      • I work remote, which means my daily work life is very similar to how open source works, and I also have some open source involvement. I find zero reason to show anger in my work or in open source projects where I contribute. When someone gets emotional (swearing, insulting, condescending) about a quality issue or bad code, it does not add more quality. It's just distracting from real work. When you say "you can't have a truly productive environment where all ideas are treated equally. Bad ideas should be rejected without fear" it isn't an argument that's even on topic because nobody is treating all ideas equally in terms off technical discussions. It's about treating people equally. You can disagree all you want, but condescension and insults or swearing obscure technical decisions with emotion and waste time.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by onicsis View Post

          Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer led illegal purge of male employees, lawsuit charges



          “When Savitt began at Yahoo the top managers reporting to her … including the chief editors of the verticals and magazines, were less than 20 percent female. Within a year and a half those top managers were more than 80 percent female,” the lawsuit said. “Savitt has publicly expressed support for increasing the number of women in media and has intentionally hired and promoted women because of their gender, while terminating, demoting or laying off male employees because of their gender."


          https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/...wsuit-charges/

          And that's only what is known, from the surface the the tip of the iceberg. Certainly there are others, very carefully hidden be Silicon Valley corporations.
          For the first 50 years of Silicon Valley, without formalizing it, Software Developer and Engineer were synonymous with White Male. I know, I witnessed it first hand visiting quite homogenized corporations that were competing against NeXT and later Apple. They either ended this ``unwritten practice'' and evolved or went `tits up' mainly, though a few were bought out for their IP only.

          No one I worked with at NeXT or Apple were hired by their gender, race, color or creed. They were hired for being sharp as shit. And the people commenting on here that are life long AppleInsider folks who aren't actual engineers and computer science majors whining about ``oppressing my free exercise to speak'' weren't ever qualified to be hired there, but be thankful a diverse pool of talent does or your stock wouldn't exist as Apple would have folded long ago.

          Steve Jobs abhorred xenophobes and misogyny. He hated people who thought speech without self-restraint and consequences for your thoughts is the intent behind the First Amendment, and so did the founders of the nation. The entire Think Different campaign was a reflection of these views.

          So stop turning some dipshit's quest to be canonized for whining about his inability to maintain civility in a democracry that is the LLVM community and be thankful those professionals exists, but none of you pukes do a goddamn thing to contribute to its continuation, and yet reap all the gains from it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post
            a return to 19th century Laizze Faire economics, that not only failed brutally, resulted in a messy, dangerous, pouted, crime ridden, corrupt bunch of western states, before they abandoned it.
            This is a pile of nonsense peddled by "educators" who are predominantly leftist or just ignorant. They somehow tend to overlook some important historical facts such as that the mess erupted as central planners started to pillage the fruits of the relatively laissez faire economics by creating welfare states, central banking, fiat money and such, increasing government spending from less than 10% of GDP back then to over 50% these days. This is self-evident to anyone who wishes to ignore the propaganda and apply a minimal amount of analytical approach. Well, you do not even need to look as far as the 19th century, even the so called "successful socialist countries" such as the ones in Scandinavia are rabidly reversing their socialist policies in recent decades to avoid turning themselves into Venezuelas.
            Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post
            You will have to give libertarian socialists credit for authoritarian socialist regimes...
            "Libertarian socialist" is a contradiction in terms. Some people using nonsensical terms to describe themselves does not magically turn nonsense into something that makes sense.

            Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post
            That doesn't even get into brutal dictatorships propped up by capitalist nations.
            Such as what? Pinochet's Chile was the most famous. Leftist propagandists attribute a grand total of 3000 or so deaths to his regime. Still not good as it is more than zero but incomparable to millions decimated by leftist regimes. And if you give those reports even a cursory look you'll see that their titles are something like "3000 people died under Pinochet" which does not even mean that he killed them, it just means that he was in power while they were killed. And then they go on to include in that victims of leftist terrorists, such as government officials and bystanders etc. Commies lie even about that, they had to lie to come up even with that figure. Pathetic.

            Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post
            edit: this is all in a thread because a private entity wanted to do with its own money on its own time something people didn't like. That is something that a "libertarian" would be exactly for. Right? Free Speech? Free association? Nope. So much for "Libertarianism"
            “In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” The least we can do is speak up against totalitarian behavior / ideologies. (while we still can) They are poison and it is not OK to tolerate them.

            Comment


            • lol
              Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post
              Libertarians say they support civil liberties, they must be the good guys, amiriteguys? It becomes a lot more complicated when you look into anything more than a strictly superficial look at "Libertarianism". Just because the name has "Liberty" in it, doesn't give it an automatic pass. The communists also say they support civil liberties and stuff.
              Libertarian's schtick is "minimize the use of force to effectively zero, except in retaliation" Communist's schtick is "Use force to redistribute the 'means of production' "

              Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post
              That is a pretty poor assessment of "Libertarian" ideology. At the very heart of the "Libertarian" ideology is a return to 19th century Laizze Faire economics, that not only failed brutally, resulted in a messy, dangerous, pouted, crime ridden, corrupt bunch of western states, before they abandoned it. Libertarians give fuck all about civil liberties.
              Oh is that what they're teaching in schools nowadays? Back in my day they used to blame the faults of mass immigration on Laissez-Faire economics. This is even more stupid because all of these are exponentially worse under socialism, and more importantly most of those issues were going on before Laissez Faire economics at the same or worse level. It didn't cause it.

              Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post
              That claim doesn't stand up to serious inspection either. You will have to give libertarian socialists credit for authoritarian socialist regimes, while not giving credit to authoritarian capitalist regimes to libertarians. And even then, you're going to have to play numbers games with what counts as a "responsible death". For example, you will credit socialist regimes for poverty and illness related deaths, but you will not credit the same under capitalism.
              There's no such thing as a libertarian socialist, the two ideologies are completely incompatible. One demands the lack of force, the other demands the totality of force. There's also a difference between the intentional acts such as the Holodomor and The Great Leap Forward, and a few people starving to death in the streets which protip: also happens under socialism, and no that 100 million only takes into account *intentional* starvation such as the Holodomor.
              Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post
              That doesn't even get into brutal dictatorships propped up by capitalist nations. But libertarians can wave the magic fairy ideology wand at that, because?
              And the soviets did the same, and worse... Plus even were we to count all those deaths as under capitalism... There isn't any other form of government on the planet that comes to the same order of body count that Socialist regimes have on an apples to apples comparison.

              Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post
              For every "That wasn't real socialism", you see at least two "that wasn't real capitalism" from the libertarian crowd.I know what a so called "Libertarian" is, and its essentially socialist talking points with socialism and capitalism reversed.
              And Capitalism actually has a concrete definition unlike the crap that Marx spewed out of his asshole.

              Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post
              edit: this is all in a thread because a private entity wanted to do with its own money on its own time something people didn't like. That is something that a "libertarian" would be exactly for. Right? Free Speech? Free association? Nope. So much for "Libertarianism"
              Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association don't mean that libertarians don't get to speak out or call for boycotts, what they mean is that you are not allowed to engage in positive force (doing something to them such as gagging them or stealing from them, contrast with negative force such as the withholding of association and calling for others to withhold their association), or use the monopoly on force (The Government) to this end.

              Comment


              • I think you are getting somewhat off-topic with the socialism/no socialism part.

                The matter is quite simple really:

                - Is a CoC needed for LLVM?

                I don't think so. And as far as I am aware, LLVM was started before any CoC existed.

                The licence also does not include CoC, so why is a CoC retrofitted onto a project, at-will?

                I personally can not agree with CoCs which also means that I can never "abide" to any
                of them either. So I completely understand him leaving a project he can not contribute
                to anymore.

                That way LLVM also bleeds out developers.

                Qaridarium wrote:
                > Hell Fuck off Germany who do more censoring than China

                There is censorship going on in every country, including the supposedly "free" democracies.

                However had, it is still wrong to compare Germany with China and claim that Germany
                censors more than China. Such a claim is simply INCORRECT. Please get the facts straight.

                > Marc Driftmeyer wrote:

                "[...] These are contributors of their own free will, and their employers wallets'' and not employees of LLVM Community. However, the financial creation of the LLVM Community is from Apple, Google, MSFT, IBM, etc., and they all have standard bylaws for code of conduct. Don't like, then build your own competing compiler suite. [...]"

                First, it is interesting how you insert corporations who control LLVM. That in itself is a pretty curious dead give-away who controls LLVM.

                But even more importantly, you write "build your own competing compiler suite".

                WHY should this be done? Why should HE leave the project, rather than the fake-social warriors who propagate and promote CoCs?

                I fail to see why the CoC should win. Are you the moral overlord who decides for projects?

                LLVM can already be forked as-is. CoCs are not even part of the licence, which just reinforces how utterly useless they are.

                The fact that YOU tell people to LEAVE, rather than the CoC advocates to leave, shows that you are clearly in the pro-CoC camp.
                So you are not qualified to judge over people you don't understand.

                F.Ultra wrote:

                > Exactly which "political belief" does not agree with those points? I think even Nazis would agree that this is a OK list.

                Uhm... the nazi mass-murdered people.


                You think it's a good analogy that you used there comparing the CoC? Plus, I consider the CoC absolutely not acceptable
                on any level. I don't even get how anyone can agree on it. So now what?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Palu Macil View Post
                  I work remote, which means my daily work life is very similar to how open source works, and I also have some open source involvement. I find zero reason to show anger in my work or in open source projects where I contribute. When someone gets emotional (swearing, insulting, condescending) about a quality issue or bad code, it does not add more quality. It's just distracting from real work. When you say "you can't have a truly productive environment where all ideas are treated equally. Bad ideas should be rejected without fear" it isn't an argument that's even on topic because nobody is treating all ideas equally in terms off technical discussions. It's about treating people equally. You can disagree all you want, but condescension and insults or swearing obscure technical decisions with emotion and waste time.
                  I'm going to go in the assumption that this post was directed towards me, because that seems to be a direct quote from my post. It's out of context though so I'll just quickly quote my post in full first:

                  Originally posted by Djhg2000 View Post

                  It's certainly not ok to demand everyone to be treated with equal respect, because respect is something you earn. The correct term for enforced respect is "fear".

                  More to the point you can't have a truly productive environment where all ideas are treated equally. Bad ideas should be rejected without fear of being punished for doing so. If you think your idea is good then it's up to you to convince me of that.

                  Also I think you may have forgotten how much the Nazis were into limiting free speech.
                  See how it's preceded by debunking the common misconception of what "respect" is? Keep that in mind because it sets the stage for when the other statements are valid. Now let's proceed with addressing your concerns.

                  You don't need to use anger or offensive language to reject a bad idea most of the time. Most of the time they get it when you tell them. That's not the situation I'm talking about. In fact, I take pride in keeping explicit words out of professional and/or serious discussions, because it prompts an emotional response rather than a logical one.

                  What I mean is you can't go around being afraid that those few people who will do all in their might to get their way will use the code of conduct as a tool to get you in trouble for telling them their idea isn't worth working on. It puts a huge chunk of stress on your mind. I'm currently in academics, and just a couple of weeks ago we had an incident that went public which wasn't that far off:

                  It was a student who was engaged in a discussion with two other students about crime statistics. When they questioned his statement about certain groups being overrepresented in the statistics he said he could provide studies that suggested he was right. The two students then asked to see those studies and he subsequently provided copies of them. The discussion went on and presumably came to some sort of conclusion. Later another student who was not part of the discussion obtained a copy of the study and filed a formal complaint against the student who had found it, claiming it was offensive. The student who had the complaint filed against him was then brought into a closed room with two representatives of the school who told him several times that his behavior was unacceptable because it had offended someone who didn't participate in the discussion. He defended himself by saying he only provided the numbers the other two students had requested, and furthermore that free speech would allow him to do so. The school representatives then informed him that the case had already been forwarded to a higher instance. Later on two representatives (unclear if it was the same two or other ones) went around on campus encouraging students to report more incidents of offensive material.

                  So no, I think you have either been lucky enough or just hard enough to reach (not in the literal sense) to encounter a situation that would have you really think through how draconian these rulesets are. They will be abused and they will cherry pick whatever quotes or actions they can to pin "hate speech" on you. Don't forget how such allegations are potentially career ending events nowadays. Trust me, living in such an environment is not for the faint of heart. The biggest supporters of free speech tend to be those who do not have it.

                  Finally, I'll leave you with the following quote to consider:
                  I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
                    And this little rant here: So just how SJW/Feminazi and horrible is the LLVM CoC:

                    Exactly which "political belief" does not agree with those points? I think even Nazis would agree that this is a OK list.
                    I think it behooves people to read the content and accepted interpretation of each of those headings, before concluding that they agree with them.

                    Comment


                    • Props to mastermind and Luke_Wolf for the sober replies to GI_Jack 's post. I read each paragraph of GL_Jack's post twice in a desperate effort to extract some sense from it. It made my head hurt :P

                      GL_Jack: the one thing I'd like to add to what those other two said is this:

                      If you hear a libertarian say "not real libertarianism", they're saying it because the target being described is not characterised by:
                      • Non-aggression. An imperfect short explanation of what this means is: don't violently attack others
                      • Respect for property rights
                      • and in general: respect for the rights of individuals to act as they see fit so long as they are not aggressing against others or their property. Among other things, this means you don't use force to stop them speaking or freely associating with others. The LLVM contributor was able to freely speak and freely refuse to associate with LLVM. You will not find a libertarian who thinks he should not have been able to speak or who would say he should not be allowed to leave the group.
                      It is plausible that there are racist, sexist and homophobic libertarians out there. It is not plausible that there are libertarians who promote violence against certain sexes, races or people with certain sexual preferences. The libertarian view could be imperfectly summarized as "live and let live". Just because a libertarian does not condone silencing someone, using violence against someone or forcing someone to behave in a particular way does not mean that the libertarian supports them. For instance: a libertarian would not demand that communists or nazis are forcibly silenced, assaulted or forced to associate with certain groups even if that libertarian absolutely hated those communists or nazis. I hope that makes sense.

                      Right now there isn't a libertarian nation/country/society on the face of this planet. There are however many libertarian people who -- as best as they can -- live by and promote libertarian principles.

                      If you hear a capitalist say "not real capitalism", they're saying it because the target being described is not characterised by:
                      • individuals being allowed to freely acquire capital (money / goods / property / things!) via peaceful trade, work and gifts.
                      • an environment where private property rights are widely respected
                      • people are allowed to freely associate and trade their private property without coercive restriction
                      • people are not violently controlled, coerced and selectively robbed by a state
                      Right now you will find pockets of capitalism in various places on the earth, but the American economy, for example, absolutely cannot be fairly described as capitalist. It has capitalist elements, but there is a very high degree of:
                      • restrictions on what types of capital private individuals can peacefully acquire.
                      • violations of property rights by the state (for example: extreme "taxation", licensing, asset forfeiture, property zoning and businesses being shut down due to non-compliance with regulations and licensing)
                      • extreme restrictions on trade
                      • one side of almost every transaction is manipulated by a socialist institution called the Federal Reserve. It is a government controlled monopoly of the means of monetary production.
                      • people are continually controlled, coerced and selectively robbed by the state.

                      If you hear a socialist say "not real socialism", they're almost certainly saying it because the target being described is failing in some obvious way and there are still pockets of freedom that can be found that have not been completely controlled or crushed by the socialist state; or in the case of anarcho-socialists: they have not been controlled or crushed by the individual socialists. The point here is: the socialist will blame the failure on the pocket of freedom.

                      USA, France, Canada, England and Sweden. None of these countries can be fairly described as capitalist or socialist. They all have elements of both. You can however refer to specific elements of them as being socialist or capitalist.
                      Last edited by cybertraveler; 03 May 2018, 04:38 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X