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

> > As long as the committee remains unimportant, things will be fine.
> > As soon as the committee becomes important, the LLVM project has
already
> > degenerated into a snake pit, and is likely to fork anyway.
> 
> This sounds like an oxymoron, as if this policy only makes sense if
> the non-representative foundation never tries to enforce it in a way
> that the community doesn't accept. And if it does, the rest will flee.
> Personally, I think this is a very unstable situation.
I read that as "if the committee has to engage in an enforcement action
more than very rarely, then the community has already degenerated..."
Which is a sentiment I can fully agree with.
--paulr

On 13 October 2015 at 16:23, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I read that as "if the committee has to engage in an enforcement
action
> more than very rarely, then the community has already degenerated..."
> Which is a sentiment I can fully agree with.
Good point. I agree, too.

--renato

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 9:13 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On 13 October 2015 at 16:23, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> I read that as "if the committee has to engage in an enforcement
action
>> more than very rarely, then the community has already
degenerated..."
>> Which is a sentiment I can fully agree with.
> 
> Good point. I agree, too.
Definitely agreed here too. A code of conduct can’t in and of itself fix a
broken community, but can help make clear the expected culture and policy that
already exists unwritten. I’d kinda like to think that LLVM is already mostly
representative of what’s in this document!

—escha

Am 13.10.2015 um 17:23 schrieb Robinson, Paul via
llvm-dev:
>>> As long as the committee remains unimportant, things will be fine.
>>> As soon as the committee becomes important, the LLVM project has
already
>>> degenerated into a snake pit, and is likely to fork anyway.
>>
>> This sounds like an oxymoron, as if this policy only makes sense if
>> the non-representative foundation never tries to enforce it in a way
>> that the community doesn't accept. And if it does, the rest will
flee.
>> Personally, I think this is a very unstable situation.
>
> I read that as "if the committee has to engage in an enforcement
action
> more than very rarely, then the community has already degenerated..."
> Which is a sentiment I can fully agree with.
That was how I meant it.
Sorry for being unclear.