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

----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Y Knight via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at llvm.org>
> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 6:08:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct
> 
...
> 
> 
> The only bit that seems to me really needs fleshing out is what the
> process for appointing the CoC committee is. I'd sort of assume
> based on what other organizations do that the LLVM Foundation Board
> would be responsible for appointing the Committee, but that the
> Board and the Committe would not be one and the same.
> 
> Of course, the LLVM Foundation Board *really* must be a transparent,
> trusted, and respected group in the community in order to be able to
> properly take on that role. Based on the board members (at least,
> from the 2014 announcement), it seems to me that there should be no
> intrinsic problem there...but getting the "trivial" things done
like
> posting the bylaws and meeting notes on the website is really quite
> important to engender such trust.
I'd like to second this; transparency is very important here. That's
properly the subject of a different thread.

However, I'd also like to highlight David's comments here:
> Note that we can do this in FreeBSD, because we have an elected Core
> Team.  The FreeBSD Foundation has spent the last 15 or so years
> finding its current role (and has offered the LLVM Foundation the
> benefit of this experience).  Unlike the Foundation, which is an
> independent entity from the project (though one that consults with
> Core on a regular basis and provides valuable services to the
> project), Core is 100% accountable to the FreeBSD project.  Every
> two years, anyone active committer (defined as someone who has
> committed something to a FreeBSD repository in the last year) is
> entitled to vote for the new Core Team (and, of course, to stand for
> election).
and say that this seems like a good model for the CoC committee process.
Specifically, something that is community driven. As Chris said,
> [...] what the LLVM Foundation is
> about.  It isn’t about making technical decisions (we have code
> owners for that).  It is designed to handle administration of the
> project and infrastructure, including planning and rolling out of
> the devmtgs.
and this is clearly an important function. One thing that defines LLVMs code
ownership role is that it is not particularly hierarchical in authority. A code
owner is quite-accurately described as a "first among equals", and
maintaining that flavor in the structure of the community is important. The LLVM
foundation, as an entity tasked with financial obligations, can have an
independent process for determining its leadership, and that's not
inappropriate.

Finally, I'd like to say that one of the most attractive things about this
community is how professional it is. The people are respectful, polite, patient
and helpful. What I'm hearing is that experience from other communities
suggests that having a CoC will help ensure these qualities continue to define
LLVM's community, and therefore, I'm in favor.

Thanks again,
Hal
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> 
-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "James Y Knight via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> > To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at llvm.org>
> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 6:08:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of
> Conduct
> >
> ...
> >
> >
> > The only bit that seems to me really needs fleshing out is what the
> > process for appointing the CoC committee is. I'd sort of assume
> > based on what other organizations do that the LLVM Foundation Board
> > would be responsible for appointing the Committee, but that the
> > Board and the Committe would not be one and the same.
> >
> > Of course, the LLVM Foundation Board *really* must be a transparent,
> > trusted, and respected group in the community in order to be able to
> > properly take on that role. Based on the board members (at least,
> > from the 2014 announcement), it seems to me that there should be no
> > intrinsic problem there...but getting the "trivial" things
done like
> > posting the bylaws and meeting notes on the website is really quite
> > important to engender such trust.
>
> I'd like to second this; transparency is very important here.
That's
> properly the subject of a different thread.
>
> However, I'd also like to highlight David's comments here:
>
> > Note that we can do this in FreeBSD, because we have an elected Core
> > Team.  The FreeBSD Foundation has spent the last 15 or so years
> > finding its current role (and has offered the LLVM Foundation the
> > benefit of this experience).  Unlike the Foundation, which is an
> > independent entity from the project (though one that consults with
> > Core on a regular basis and provides valuable services to the
> > project), Core is 100% accountable to the FreeBSD project.  Every
> > two years, anyone active committer (defined as someone who has
> > committed something to a FreeBSD repository in the last year) is
> > entitled to vote for the new Core Team (and, of course, to stand for
> > election).
>
> and say that this seems like a good model for the CoC committee process.
> Specifically, something that is community driven. As Chris said,
>
> > [...] what the LLVM Foundation is
> > about.  It isn’t about making technical decisions (we have code
> > owners for that).  It is designed to handle administration of the
> > project and infrastructure, including planning and rolling out of
> > the devmtgs.
>
> and this is clearly an important function. One thing that defines LLVMs
> code ownership role is that it is not particularly hierarchical in
> authority. A code owner is quite-accurately described as a "first
among
> equals", and maintaining that flavor in the structure of the community
is
> important. The LLVM foundation, as an entity tasked with financial
> obligations, can have an independent process for determining its
> leadership, and that's not inappropriate.
>
> Finally, I'd like to say that one of the most attractive things about
this
> community is how professional it is. The people are respectful, polite,
> patient and helpful. What I'm hearing is that experience from other
> communities suggests that having a CoC will help ensure these qualities
> continue to define LLVM's community, and therefore, I'm in favor.
>
I haven't been part of the community for very long, but I'd like to echo
Hal's sentiments here and agree very much with what he's said. So, +1.

>
> Thanks again,
> Hal
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >
>
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Assistant Computational Scientist
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151013/5c71d775/attachment.html>

On Oct 13, 2015, at 5:37 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> and say that this seems like a good model for the CoC committee process.
Specifically, something that is community driven. As Chris said,
> 
>> [...] what the LLVM Foundation is
>> about.  It isn’t about making technical decisions (we have code
>> owners for that).  It is designed to handle administration of the
>> project and infrastructure, including planning and rolling out of
>> the devmtgs.
> 
> and this is clearly an important function. One thing that defines LLVMs
code ownership role is that it is not particularly hierarchical in authority. A
code owner is quite-accurately described as a "first among equals",
and maintaining that flavor in the structure of the community is important. The
LLVM foundation, as an entity tasked with financial obligations, can have an
independent process for determining its leadership, and that's not
inappropriate.
I completely agree.

FWIW, I see the board’s role here as 1) identifying the need for a CoC, and 2)
starting a discussion about it.  It is not the board’s job to dictate some
specific thing without approval of the community.  The proposal Chandler sent
out was intended as an *RFC*  (see the subject of the message) not a
"dictate from the board”.  The discussion is intended to take place in
public, and feedback and input is greatly welcomed.

If anything, the formal role of the board is to replace me in various capacities
as “head code owner”.  We need some entity to break ties and settle debates
(both technical and policy) and it is unreasonable for LLVM in the long term for
that responsibility to rest solely on my shoulders.  The LLVM Foundation is
intended to distribute that responsibility to multiple different people with
multiple different perspectives, backgrounds, and personal biases, to make sure
we get the right thing for the community at large.

The great thing about this is that this is completely forward looking, and *not*
driven by any specific crisis.  We want LLVM to be proactive and built for the
long term, not a reactive community that tries to duct-tape problems as they
come up.  So far, the board has not had to settle any disputes, and while we had
one situation where a CoC would have been useful, it was both a long time ago
(~2006) and was handling with professionalism at that time.  That said, times
change and the LLVM community has grown a lot, we want to be prepared for the
next 10 years. :-)
> Finally, I'd like to say that one of the most attractive things about
this community is how professional it is. The people are respectful, polite,
patient and helpful. What I'm hearing is that experience from other
communities suggests that having a CoC will help ensure these qualities continue
to define LLVM's community, and therefore, I'm in favor.
I totally agree.  I see a CoC as formalizing existing practice, not establishing
new practice.  If anything, it is a bit disheartening to see some folks'
reactions on this thread, because they border into the unprofessional behavior
that we’d like to avoid.  Here is one way to look at it: passionate technical
discussions are great.  Vitriol, ad-hominem attacks, and implied ill-will is
not.

Further, while this seems like a simple task, there is an art to codifying this
existing practice in the right way.  This obviously requires community effort,
and I want to thank Chandler again for taking on the thankless task of driving
the discussion!

-Chris

Hi All,

Chandler and the community - thank you very much for working on this. I'm
in favour of seeing something like this adopted.
> I totally agree.  I see a CoC as formalizing existing practice, not
establishing new practice.

It may ease some concerns if the opening lines of the CoC made this
explicit, but I haven't been able to think up any good language for that.
In the long run I don't think it will matter: if/when the CoC is adopted it
will quickly become "part of the furniture".

Reflecting on the grand social project to make our spaces safer: We should
acknowledge, and I think the proposed CoC does this well, that it's
impossible to create a space free of offense. Nobody would want to inhabit
such a space anyway. The goal is to prevent unreasonable behavior/offense,
and to dispense reasonable offense professionally and equitably. ;)

- Lang.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2015, at 5:37 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > and say that this seems like a good model for the CoC committee
process.
> Specifically, something that is community driven. As Chris said,
> >
> >> [...] what the LLVM Foundation is
> >> about.  It isn’t about making technical decisions (we have code
> >> owners for that).  It is designed to handle administration of the
> >> project and infrastructure, including planning and rolling out of
> >> the devmtgs.
> >
> > and this is clearly an important function. One thing that defines
LLVMs
> code ownership role is that it is not particularly hierarchical in
> authority. A code owner is quite-accurately described as a "first
among
> equals", and maintaining that flavor in the structure of the community
is
> important. The LLVM foundation, as an entity tasked with financial
> obligations, can have an independent process for determining its
> leadership, and that's not inappropriate.
>
> I completely agree.
>
> FWIW, I see the board’s role here as 1) identifying the need for a CoC,
> and 2) starting a discussion about it.  It is not the board’s job to
> dictate some specific thing without approval of the community.  The
> proposal Chandler sent out was intended as an *RFC*  (see the subject of
> the message) not a "dictate from the board”.  The discussion is
intended to
> take place in public, and feedback and input is greatly welcomed.
>
> If anything, the formal role of the board is to replace me in various
> capacities as “head code owner”.  We need some entity to break ties and
> settle debates (both technical and policy) and it is unreasonable for LLVM
> in the long term for that responsibility to rest solely on my shoulders.
> The LLVM Foundation is intended to distribute that responsibility to
> multiple different people with multiple different perspectives,
> backgrounds, and personal biases, to make sure we get the right thing for
> the community at large.
>
> The great thing about this is that this is completely forward looking, and
> *not* driven by any specific crisis.  We want LLVM to be proactive and
> built for the long term, not a reactive community that tries to duct-tape
> problems as they come up.  So far, the board has not had to settle any
> disputes, and while we had one situation where a CoC would have been
> useful, it was both a long time ago (~2006) and was handling with
> professionalism at that time.  That said, times change and the LLVM
> community has grown a lot, we want to be prepared for the next 10 years.
:-)
>
> > Finally, I'd like to say that one of the most attractive things
about
> this community is how professional it is. The people are respectful,
> polite, patient and helpful. What I'm hearing is that experience from
other
> communities suggests that having a CoC will help ensure these qualities
> continue to define LLVM's community, and therefore, I'm in favor.
>
> I totally agree.  I see a CoC as formalizing existing practice, not
> establishing new practice.  If anything, it is a bit disheartening to see
> some folks' reactions on this thread, because they border into the
> unprofessional behavior that we’d like to avoid.  Here is one way to look
> at it: passionate technical discussions are great.  Vitriol, ad-hominem
> attacks, and implied ill-will is not.
>
> Further, while this seems like a simple task, there is an art to codifying
> this existing practice in the right way.  This obviously requires community
> effort, and I want to thank Chandler again for taking on the thankless task
> of driving the discussion!
>
> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151013/2820d0ef/attachment.html>