llvm dev - May 2016 - Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct

> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
Chris
> Lattner via llvm-dev
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 4:36 PM
> To: Renato Golin
> Cc: llvm-dev
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM
> code of conduct
> 
> On May 5, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> >> My personal involvement isn’t relevant to this discussion: the
LLVM
> foundation is a single legal entity that you’re looking for.  It exists in
> large part because this *isn’t* about me, or any other single person.
> >
> > How large? I mean, if we really care about the community as a whole,
> 
> Renato, I can only assure you that (for hopefully totally transparent
> reasons) I have a deep amount of care for LLVM as a project, and I know
> that its long term success is *ONLY* possible through a vibrant and
> awesome community as a whole.
> 
> I can only interpret your tone and approach as saying that you think
> someone or some people are trying to nefariously harm the LLVM community.
> While I have no way to compel you to believe me, I really really do want
> the LLVM community to be vibrant and awesome, and it makes me sad that you
> apparently assume otherwise.
> 
> -Chris
I don't read it as "nefariously harm" so much as ex-nihilo
asserting
a Foundation exists and has some kind of control over the community
(e.g., insisting on a CoC).  Even if we all believe those in control 
are entirely benevolent (and I see no evidence to the contrary), it's 
still pretty disconcerting in terms of process.
--paulr
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:07 PM Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf
Of
> Chris
> > Lattner via llvm-dev
>
> > While I have no way to compel you to believe me, I really really do
want
> > the LLVM community to be vibrant and awesome, and it makes me sad that
> you
> > apparently assume otherwise.
> >
> > -Chris
>
> I don't read it as "nefariously harm" so much as ex-nihilo
asserting
> a Foundation exists and has some kind of control over the community
> (e.g., insisting on a CoC).

I want to be super clear, the foundation is not insisting on anything, nor
can it.

**I** am making this proposal as an active and long time contributor to
LLVM. Many other members of the community have also expressed support for
this on this and previous threads. But our support is given as individual
members of the community and it should be valued as such.

I also want to say very clearly that for me, having a code of conduct that
satisfies certain basic criteria isn't just incredibly important for me,
personally. It is absolutely **essential**. I personally need this. Perhaps
I'm wrong for needing it, and you or others may not understand or agree or
even care. I don't expect any of that. But since I think it helps for folks
to be explicit about the degree to which they care, I wanted to volunteer
to be explicit.

-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/6f7d1735/attachment.html>

Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
writes:
> I want to be super clear, the foundation is not insisting on anything, nor
> can it.
>
> **I** am making this proposal as an active and long time contributor to
> LLVM. Many other members of the community have also expressed support for
> this on this and previous threads. But our support is given as individual
> members of the community and it should be valued as such.
Just to add a little bit to this, it's very much a mischaracterization
of the situation to imply that the code of conduct idea is some sort of
demand coming from the foundation. People have been discussing the value
that a code of conduct will bring to the LLVM community for as long as
I've been a part of it.

I'm personally very happy to see that this is finally making some
progress, by the way. Thank you Chandler and everyone else who has been
working on this.
> I also want to say very clearly that for me, having a code of conduct that
> satisfies certain basic criteria isn't just incredibly important for
me,
> personally. It is absolutely **essential**. I personally need this. Perhaps
> I'm wrong for needing it, and you or others may not understand or agree
or
> even care. I don't expect any of that. But since I think it helps for
folks
> to be explicit about the degree to which they care, I wanted to volunteer
> to be explicit.
>
> -Chandler
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

The actual role of the Foundation is off-topic here; I was expressing my
interpretation of something, in order to contrast it with Chris' (IMO less
benign) expressed interpretation.
I'm happy to talk about the Foundation on another thread if anyone wants to.
Chandler, I have never doubted your level of personal commitment to a CoC; that
has been crystal clear since the beginning. Nor am I opposed to a CoC in
principle, nor do I think the wordsmithing is all that crucial. But as it was an
agenda item at two Foundation board meetings, it's harder to accept that it
is *purely* an individual contribution.
--paulr

From: Chandler Carruth [mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 5:52 PM
To: Robinson, Paul; Chris Lattner; Renato Golin
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of
conduct

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:07 PM Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>] On Behalf Of
Chris
> Lattner via llvm-dev
> While I have no way to compel you to believe me, I really really do want
> the LLVM community to be vibrant and awesome, and it makes me sad that you
> apparently assume otherwise.
>
> -Chris
I don't read it as "nefariously harm" so much as ex-nihilo
asserting
a Foundation exists and has some kind of control over the community
(e.g., insisting on a CoC).

I want to be super clear, the foundation is not insisting on anything, nor can
it.

**I** am making this proposal as an active and long time contributor to LLVM.
Many other members of the community have also expressed support for this on this
and previous threads. But our support is given as individual members of the
community and it should be valued as such.

I also want to say very clearly that for me, having a code of conduct that
satisfies certain basic criteria isn't just incredibly important for me,
personally. It is absolutely **essential**. I personally need this. Perhaps
I'm wrong for needing it, and you or others may not understand or agree or
even care. I don't expect any of that. But since I think it helps for folks
to be explicit about the degree to which they care, I wanted to volunteer to be
explicit.

-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/149522ad/attachment-0001.html>

Hi All,

To Tanya, Chandler, Philip, and everyone else who worked on this: Thank
you! I really like the revised version of the CoC. The extra emphasis on
continuity with existing standards answers the minor concerns I had with
the original version, and I think you did a great job at capturing the
spirit of the community.

Renato, Joachim, and others who are concerned: For what it's worth I lean
libertarian on these things, and my gut instinct is to distrust attempts to
codify what is and isn't reasonable behaviour. As you say - any
codification has the potential to be subverted for mischief. That said,
given the emphasis the new document places on maintaining our existing
culture I don't think it will encourage any mischief in practice, and it
might encourage people to join the community who would otherwise have been
wary of doing so. That seems like a big net win.

Cheers,
Lang.

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:07 PM Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On
Behalf Of
>> Chris
>> > Lattner via llvm-dev
>>
>
>
>> > While I have no way to compel you to believe me, I really really
do want
>> > the LLVM community to be vibrant and awesome, and it makes me sad
that
>> you
>> > apparently assume otherwise.
>> >
>> > -Chris
>>
>> I don't read it as "nefariously harm" so much as
ex-nihilo asserting
>> a Foundation exists and has some kind of control over the community
>> (e.g., insisting on a CoC).
>
>
> I want to be super clear, the foundation is not insisting on anything, nor
> can it.
>
> **I** am making this proposal as an active and long time contributor to
> LLVM. Many other members of the community have also expressed support for
> this on this and previous threads. But our support is given as individual
> members of the community and it should be valued as such.
>
> I also want to say very clearly that for me, having a code of conduct that
> satisfies certain basic criteria isn't just incredibly important for
me,
> personally. It is absolutely **essential**. I personally need this. Perhaps
> I'm wrong for needing it, and you or others may not understand or agree
or
> even care. I don't expect any of that. But since I think it helps for
folks
> to be explicit about the degree to which they care, I wanted to volunteer
> to be explicit.
>
> -Chandler
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160505/61914294/attachment.html>