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

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

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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.

I can see how one would interpret Chris' statement:

"""
Renato, I’m confused about your approach here.  At this point, you seem
persistently interested in discussing whether having a code of conduct is
the right thing or not.  This is missing the point: we’re committed to it,
and want to make sure that we get reasonable processes and policies in
place.

If we find out that they are problematic in practice, we can and will
course correct.
"""

as "some sort of demand coming from the foundation". In context, my
reading
of "we're committed to it" is precisely "demand coming from
the foundation".

Maybe a clarification is needed?

-- Sean Silva


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160505/4bdf2f47/attachment.html>

> On May 5, 2016, at 6:53 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
<mailto: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.
> 
> I can see how one would interpret Chris' statement:
> 
> """
> Renato, I’m confused about your approach here.  At this point, you seem
persistently interested in discussing whether having a code of conduct is the
right thing or not.  This is missing the point: we’re committed to it, and want
to make sure that we get reasonable processes and policies in place.
> 
> If we find out that they are problematic in practice, we can and will
course correct.
> """
> 
> as "some sort of demand coming from the foundation". In context,
my reading of "we're committed to it" is precisely "demand
coming from the foundation".
> 
> Maybe a clarification is needed?
Here’s your clarification:  we == Chandler & I.

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160505/cded8fc2/attachment.html>