llvm dev - Oct 2015 - RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:55 AM David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at
cl.cam.ac.uk>
wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2015, at 02:42, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > If you have questions, please see feel free to contact the LLVM
> Foundation Code of Conduct Advisory Committee by emailing conduct at
llvm.org
> .
>
> My main concern with this document is that it is appointing the LLVM
> Foundation Code of Conduct Advisory Committee as the arbiters and  judges
> (with enforcement powers) over the LLVM community

This is an incredibly important point, and I'm sorry that it got lost. Not
sure if it just got lost in editing or it just wasn't clear.

We have *not* appointed any such committee at this point. The goal was to
first get the basis for handling these issues in place, and *then* to work
out the logistics of establishing the committee. We will do that in as open
and transparent of a way as possible, and folks will be very much able to
comment on all matters of this.

We can also *change* the particular processes for the logistics here as we
go along and make sure they are functioning effectively.

I'll also try to give at least my perspective on some of the points you
make below:

> , yet does not provide any indication of:
>
> - Who these people are.
>
I think that this will of course be part of actually establishing the
committee.

>
> - How the LLVM community will select them (I presume that they are not
> intended to be externally imposed, as to have any moral authority over the
> community they would have to be supported by the community).
>
I don't think that their job will be to impose moral authority, I think the
code of conduct is the basis they would be required to cite for any
decision. Their role should be much more focused on understanding what has
happened, and ensuring it is responded to. I also think that is called out
in the document.

This is not to say that the individuals would not need to be trusted by the
community -- they absolutely would need the trust of folks to work very
hard to make reasonable decisions here.

>
> - How often they will change, what the term limits are, and so on.
>
> - What their oversight mechanism is (it appears that the only appeal to
> rulings of the committee is to the committee itself, which seems rife for
> abuse).
>
The appeal is to the board of the Foundation. I don't expect the board to
*be* the committee here, quite the opposite.

>
> The LLVM Foundation itself has existed now for over a year and has largely
> failed to engage with the community.  This is clearly not a good model for
> an committee that is intended to oversee (and enforce!) the behaviour of a
> community.
>
I'm surprised and saddened to hear you say this. I also don't
particularly
agree. I have interacted with almost every member of the foundation board
as a regular course of interacting with the community. The foundation is
completely handling the planning and running of the developer's meeting.
Certainly, we're still in the infancy of figuring this stuff out, but I
don't see a problematic lack of engagement.

If there is little need for the board to engage with the community
actively, that is because this community is (IMO) very healthy and has few
needs in that regard. I actually expect the code of conduct to work much
the same. I think the community *already* behaves excellently, and look at
this as a way to ensure that going forward and advertise that to potential
new-comers.

-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/e6451eae/attachment.html>

On 13 October 2015 at 18:59, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> We have *not* appointed any such committee at this point.
> (...)
> The appeal is to the board of the Foundation. I don't expect the board
to
> *be* the committee here, quite the opposite.
This doesn't solve the problem. If the foundation appoints the
committee, appeals to the foundation are still open for abuse.

Only democratic and transparent processes can work in this fashion,
and I don't see the foundation as being either.

> I don't think that their job will be to impose moral authority, I think
the
> code of conduct is the basis they would be required to cite for any
> decision. Their role should be much more focused on understanding what has
> happened, and ensuring it is responded to. I also think that is called out
> in the document.
So why the need to list the punishments and make sure that only
capital punishments can actually be appealed?

> I'm surprised and saddened to hear you say this. I also don't
particularly
> agree. I have interacted with almost every member of the foundation board
as
> a regular course of interacting with the community. The foundation is
> completely handling the planning and running of the developer's
meeting.
> Certainly, we're still in the infancy of figuring this stuff out, but I
> don't see a problematic lack of engagement.
Apart from the great work Tanya is doing with the LLVM meetings, I
don't absolutely anything coming from the foundation. Can you
elaborate?

All in all, she was already doing great work before, so I take this
more as her personal merit than anything else.

Since we're delving into this topic...

I expected the foundation to own and improve the validation
infrastructure, and the web presence. So far I only saw Apple building
the great GreenBot, but when I wanted to help, it seemed this would be
something between me and on Apple employee.

I also saw the migration to a new server (thanks again Tanya), but
that's very far from providing a stable infrastructure. If Tanya is
the only one doing things, of course she won't be able to do what we
*need* in any reasonable time.

I expected the foundation sponsors to put in hardware and money to buy
servers, Amazon cloud instances, co-host testing devices with
universities in a way to foster inclusion and promote the project,
etc. Things that are obvious to me, but it seems got lost in the
foundation...

I also don't see any transparency, not representation. We got a memo
that it came into existence, than nothing else. I can't find any
document about the foundation except that blog post. As a non-profit,
I'd expect to be public memos, checks and balances, monthly reports,
etc.

I don't want to have those documents on my disk, I want them public,
indexed by search engines, as soon as they're published.

I can't see how the foundation represents my work in LLVM if they
essentially don't exist publicly, especially because there's no way I
can influence. Representation is given, not taken.

cheers,
--renato

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:16 AM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 13 October 2015 at 18:59, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > We have *not* appointed any such committee at this point.
> > (...)
> > The appeal is to the board of the Foundation. I don't expect the
board to
> > *be* the committee here, quite the opposite.
>
> This doesn't solve the problem. If the foundation appoints the
> committee, appeals to the foundation are still open for abuse.
>
> Only democratic and transparent processes can work in this fashion,
> and I don't see the foundation as being either.
>
>
> > I don't think that their job will be to impose moral authority, I
think
> the
> > code of conduct is the basis they would be required to cite for any
> > decision. Their role should be much more focused on understanding what
> has
> > happened, and ensuring it is responded to. I also think that is called
> out
> > in the document.
>
> So why the need to list the punishments and make sure that only
> capital punishments can actually be appealed?
>
For some of the reasons we at least need to make it clear the scope:
http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/

>
>
> > I'm surprised and saddened to hear you say this. I also don't
> particularly
> > agree. I have interacted with almost every member of the foundation
> board as
> > a regular course of interacting with the community. The foundation is
> > completely handling the planning and running of the developer's
meeting.
> > Certainly, we're still in the infancy of figuring this stuff out,
but I
> > don't see a problematic lack of engagement.
>
> Apart from the great work Tanya is doing with the LLVM meetings, I
> don't absolutely anything coming from the foundation. Can you
> elaborate?
>
We are actively working on infrastructure issues (note the move to new
mailing list servers?) and issues around licensing (the discussions we have
had before about CLA).

But *none* of this belongs in this thread.

I'm very happy to have a discussion of how the foundation can (and IMO
should!) be more transparent and effective. I would also love to see other
discussions about the foundation. We even have a BoF dedicated to such
discussions at the developer's meeting.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/98c16b21/attachment.html>

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On 13 October 2015 at 18:59, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> We have *not* appointed any such committee at this point.
>> (...)
>> The appeal is to the board of the Foundation. I don't expect the
board to
>> *be* the committee here, quite the opposite.
> 
> This doesn't solve the problem. If the foundation appoints the
> committee, appeals to the foundation are still open for abuse.
> 
> Only democratic and transparent processes can work in this fashion,
> and I don't see the foundation as being either.
> 
> 
>> I don't think that their job will be to impose moral authority, I
think the
>> code of conduct is the basis they would be required to cite for any
>> decision. Their role should be much more focused on understanding what
has
>> happened, and ensuring it is responded to. I also think that is called
out
>> in the document.
> 
> So why the need to list the punishments and make sure that only
> capital punishments can actually be appealed?
> 
> 
>> I'm surprised and saddened to hear you say this. I also don't
particularly
>> agree. I have interacted with almost every member of the foundation
board as
>> a regular course of interacting with the community. The foundation is
>> completely handling the planning and running of the developer's
meeting.
>> Certainly, we're still in the infancy of figuring this stuff out,
but I
>> don't see a problematic lack of engagement.
> 
> Apart from the great work Tanya is doing with the LLVM meetings, I
> don't absolutely anything coming from the foundation. Can you
> elaborate?
> 
> All in all, she was already doing great work before, so I take this
> more as her personal merit than anything else.
> 
> Since we're delving into this topic...
> 
> I expected the foundation to own and improve the validation
> infrastructure, and the web presence. So far I only saw Apple building
> the great GreenBot, but when I wanted to help, it seemed this would be
> something between me and on Apple employee.
> 
> I also saw the migration to a new server (thanks again Tanya), but
> that's very far from providing a stable infrastructure. If Tanya is
> the only one doing things, of course she won't be able to do what we
> *need* in any reasonable time.
> 
You are totally right. I am only one person. I do have help with certain aspects
of the machine. What I’m aiming for is group of administrators to handle
llvm.org <http://llvm.org/>. But I need to move all the infrastructure
over to AWS (I just moved the lists) and also separate out pieces of it (like
perf) to another machine. I know that you have give me lots of advice in this
area, and I’m sorry it hasn't been executed yet. There is a plan drafted
(with input from more than just the board), but it has not been presented to the
community yet.
> I expected the foundation sponsors to put in hardware and money to buy
> servers, Amazon cloud instances, co-host testing devices with
> universities in a way to foster inclusion and promote the project,
> etc. Things that are obvious to me, but it seems got lost in the
> foundation…
I’m sorry this is the perception. This is for sure the long term plan, but many
things have had to fall into place before . A lot of our efforts over the last
year have been in actually establishing the Foundation as a whole. So this
includes all the necessary legal, accounting, and other pieces in place. These
are all the things that are not at all interesting or really useful for the
community, but they will be in the long term.

I’d really like a better way to capture all of these great ideas. I’m taking
notes, but maybe we need another place (other than llvm-dev) that ideas can be
shared.
> 
> I also don't see any transparency, not representation. We got a memo
> that it came into existence, than nothing else. I can't find any
> document about the foundation except that blog post. As a non-profit,
> I'd expect to be public memos, checks and balances, monthly reports,
> etc.
> 
This is entirely my fault (not the board as a whole) and its something I have
been trying to rectify. You are exactly right. Everything we are doing should be
100% transparent. I have all of the board meeting minutes, our bylaws,
everything that needs to go onto the website. Its something that I just didn’t
make a high enough priority and I’m sorry about that. I will try to move this to
the top of the list.

If anyone wants copies of anything before then, I am more than happy to send an
email to you. Please do not hesitate to ask me.

-Tanya
> I don't want to have those documents on my disk, I want them public,
> indexed by search engines, as soon as they're published.
> 
> I can't see how the foundation represents my work in LLVM if they
> essentially don't exist publicly, especially because there's no way
I
> can influence. Representation is given, not taken.
> 
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/eb2d2f9e/attachment.html>