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

I like the NCoC approach, actually.  I think the community can manage 
itself quite well.  Echoing a prior response---if this community really 
needs a set of rules, then it has already deteriorated.  We are not 
there and it doesn't look like we are going in that direction.

The FreeBSD CoC also looks reasonable, and if any CoC is needed, I find 
this one more appealing.

-Krzysztof


On 10/13/2015 11:16 AM, Kuperstein, Michael M via llvm-dev
wrote:
> The "No Code of Conduct" ( https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC )
version of this is "This project adheres to No Code of Conduct. We are all
adults. We accept everyone's contributions. Nothing else matters."
>
> I'm not advocating something like this, but I tend to agree with the
sentiment that Django-style codes of conduct over-define and
over-"legalize".
>
> The FreeBSD CoC is, IMHO, much better in this respect (
https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html ).
>
> Michael
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 18:43
> To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct
>
>> Also, the problem with enumerating all the inacceptable behaviour is
>> that the text tends to become TL;DR. Which means permanent discomfort:
>> I never fully read the rules, so I'm never fully sure that I'm
not
>> violating the CoC, nor am I sure whether others violate it.
>>
>> In terms of size and complexity, the proposed CoC is shorter than the
>> typical bulletin board CoC, so it's not bad; however, it think it
>> could be made more compact.
>
> Compactness is a definite virtue. I remember attending a very successful
series of science-fiction conventions years ago, where the only formally stated
conduct policy was "You kill it, you eat it."  More extensive
elaboration was deemed to be too prone to over-interpretation by people trying
to get away with stuff, without actually providing useful guidance.
>
> As a year-round 95% online community, rather than a weekend convention with
dozens of physically present staff, LLVM probably does need something a bit more
detailed, but if the basic statement can't be reduced to a screenful or so
then it's too much.
> --paulr
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation

Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev wrote:
> I like the NCoC approach, actually.  I think the community can manage 
> itself quite well.  Echoing a prior response---if this community really 
> needs a set of rules, then it has already deteriorated.  We are not 
> there and it doesn't look like we are going in that direction.
+1

> The FreeBSD CoC also looks reasonable, and if any CoC is needed, I find 
> this one more appealing.
Perhaps the Bill & Ted's Code of Conduct:

Be excellent to each other.

On 13 October 2015 at 18:52, Bill Kelly via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Perhaps the Bill & Ted's Code of Conduct:
>
> Be excellent to each other.
Love that! +1!