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

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On 13 October 2015 at 18:59, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> We have *not* appointed any such committee at this point.
>> (...)
>> The appeal is to the board of the Foundation. I don't expect the
board to
>> *be* the committee here, quite the opposite.
> 
> This doesn't solve the problem. If the foundation appoints the
> committee, appeals to the foundation are still open for abuse.
> 
> Only democratic and transparent processes can work in this fashion,
> and I don't see the foundation as being either.
> 
> 
>> I don't think that their job will be to impose moral authority, I
think the
>> code of conduct is the basis they would be required to cite for any
>> decision. Their role should be much more focused on understanding what
has
>> happened, and ensuring it is responded to. I also think that is called
out
>> in the document.
> 
> So why the need to list the punishments and make sure that only
> capital punishments can actually be appealed?
> 
> 
>> I'm surprised and saddened to hear you say this. I also don't
particularly
>> agree. I have interacted with almost every member of the foundation
board as
>> a regular course of interacting with the community. The foundation is
>> completely handling the planning and running of the developer's
meeting.
>> Certainly, we're still in the infancy of figuring this stuff out,
but I
>> don't see a problematic lack of engagement.
> 
> Apart from the great work Tanya is doing with the LLVM meetings, I
> don't absolutely anything coming from the foundation. Can you
> elaborate?
> 
> All in all, she was already doing great work before, so I take this
> more as her personal merit than anything else.
> 
> Since we're delving into this topic...
> 
> I expected the foundation to own and improve the validation
> infrastructure, and the web presence. So far I only saw Apple building
> the great GreenBot, but when I wanted to help, it seemed this would be
> something between me and on Apple employee.
> 
> I also saw the migration to a new server (thanks again Tanya), but
> that's very far from providing a stable infrastructure. If Tanya is
> the only one doing things, of course she won't be able to do what we
> *need* in any reasonable time.
> 
You are totally right. I am only one person. I do have help with certain aspects
of the machine. What I’m aiming for is group of administrators to handle
llvm.org <http://llvm.org/>. But I need to move all the infrastructure
over to AWS (I just moved the lists) and also separate out pieces of it (like
perf) to another machine. I know that you have give me lots of advice in this
area, and I’m sorry it hasn't been executed yet. There is a plan drafted
(with input from more than just the board), but it has not been presented to the
community yet.
> I expected the foundation sponsors to put in hardware and money to buy
> servers, Amazon cloud instances, co-host testing devices with
> universities in a way to foster inclusion and promote the project,
> etc. Things that are obvious to me, but it seems got lost in the
> foundation…
I’m sorry this is the perception. This is for sure the long term plan, but many
things have had to fall into place before . A lot of our efforts over the last
year have been in actually establishing the Foundation as a whole. So this
includes all the necessary legal, accounting, and other pieces in place. These
are all the things that are not at all interesting or really useful for the
community, but they will be in the long term.

I’d really like a better way to capture all of these great ideas. I’m taking
notes, but maybe we need another place (other than llvm-dev) that ideas can be
shared.
> 
> I also don't see any transparency, not representation. We got a memo
> that it came into existence, than nothing else. I can't find any
> document about the foundation except that blog post. As a non-profit,
> I'd expect to be public memos, checks and balances, monthly reports,
> etc.
> 
This is entirely my fault (not the board as a whole) and its something I have
been trying to rectify. You are exactly right. Everything we are doing should be
100% transparent. I have all of the board meeting minutes, our bylaws,
everything that needs to go onto the website. Its something that I just didn’t
make a high enough priority and I’m sorry about that. I will try to move this to
the top of the list.

If anyone wants copies of anything before then, I am more than happy to send an
email to you. Please do not hesitate to ask me.

-Tanya
> I don't want to have those documents on my disk, I want them public,
> indexed by search engines, as soon as they're published.
> 
> I can't see how the foundation represents my work in LLVM if they
> essentially don't exist publicly, especially because there's no way
I
> can influence. Representation is given, not taken.
> 
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> 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/eb2d2f9e/attachment.html>

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> On 13 October 2015 at 18:59, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> We have *not* appointed any such committee at this point.
> (...)
> The appeal is to the board of the Foundation. I don't expect the board
to
> *be* the committee here, quite the opposite.
>
>
> This doesn't solve the problem. If the foundation appoints the
> committee, appeals to the foundation are still open for abuse.
>
> Only democratic and transparent processes can work in this fashion,
> and I don't see the foundation as being either.
>
>
> I don't think that their job will be to impose moral authority, I think
the
> code of conduct is the basis they would be required to cite for any
> decision. Their role should be much more focused on understanding what has
> happened, and ensuring it is responded to. I also think that is called out
> in the document.
>
>
> So why the need to list the punishments and make sure that only
> capital punishments can actually be appealed?
>
>
> I'm surprised and saddened to hear you say this. I also don't
particularly
> agree. I have interacted with almost every member of the foundation board
> as
> a regular course of interacting with the community. The foundation is
> completely handling the planning and running of the developer's
meeting.
> Certainly, we're still in the infancy of figuring this stuff out, but I
> don't see a problematic lack of engagement.
>
>
> Apart from the great work Tanya is doing with the LLVM meetings, I
> don't absolutely anything coming from the foundation. Can you
> elaborate?
>
> All in all, she was already doing great work before, so I take this
> more as her personal merit than anything else.
>
> Since we're delving into this topic...
>
> I expected the foundation to own and improve the validation
> infrastructure, and the web presence. So far I only saw Apple building
> the great GreenBot, but when I wanted to help, it seemed this would be
> something between me and on Apple employee.
>
> I also saw the migration to a new server (thanks again Tanya), but
> that's very far from providing a stable infrastructure. If Tanya is
> the only one doing things, of course she won't be able to do what we
> *need* in any reasonable time.
>
>
> You are totally right. I am only one person. I do have help with certain
> aspects of the machine. What I’m aiming for is group of administrators to
> handle llvm.org. But I need to move all the infrastructure over to AWS (I
> just moved the lists) and also separate out pieces of it (like perf) to
> another machine. I know that you have give me lots of advice in this area,
> and I’m sorry it hasn't been executed yet. There is a plan drafted
(with
> input from more than just the board), but it has not been presented to the
> community yet.
>
> I expected the foundation sponsors to put in hardware and money to buy
> servers, Amazon cloud instances, co-host testing devices with
> universities in a way to foster inclusion and promote the project,
> etc. Things that are obvious to me, but it seems got lost in the
> foundation…
>
>
> I’m sorry this is the perception. This is for sure the long term plan, but
> many things have had to fall into place before . A lot of our efforts over
> the last year have been in actually establishing the Foundation as a whole.
> So this includes all the necessary legal, accounting, and other pieces in
> place. These are all the things that are not at all interesting or really
> useful for the community, but they will be in the long term.
>
> I’d really like a better way to capture all of these great ideas. I’m
> taking notes, but maybe we need another place (other than llvm-dev) that
> ideas can be shared.
>
>
> I also don't see any transparency, not representation. We got a memo
> that it came into existence, than nothing else. I can't find any
> document about the foundation except that blog post. As a non-profit,
> I'd expect to be public memos, checks and balances, monthly reports,
> etc.
>
> This is entirely my fault (not the board as a whole) and its something I
> have been trying to rectify. You are exactly right. Everything we are doing
> should be 100% transparent. I have all of the board meeting minutes, our
> bylaws, everything that needs to go onto the website. Its something that I
> just didn’t make a high enough priority and I’m sorry about that. I will
> try to move this to the top of the list.
>
> If anyone wants copies of anything before then, I am more than happy to
> send an email to you. Please do not hesitate to ask me.
>
Could you just throw stuff in the public LLVM SVN repo? Same way we have
[lld] posts or [compiler-rt] posts on llvm-commits we would have
[foundation] mailing list posts or whatever. Would also be nice in that
llvm-commits is a natural avenue to disseminate information to involved
developers.

I'd definitely click into `[foundation] rXXXXXX - LLVM Foundation Oct 13
2015 meeting minutes` or whatever to take a look (that would be quite
convenient for me actually).

-- Sean Silva

>
> -Tanya
>
> I don't want to have those documents on my disk, I want them public,
> indexed by search engines, as soon as they're published.
>
> I can't see how the foundation represents my work in LLVM if they
> essentially don't exist publicly, especially because there's no way
I
> can influence. Representation is given, not taken.
>
>
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151013/f2902e97/attachment.html>

Hi,

Given David's comments about an echo-chamber, I thought I might as well
throw my oar in and say I'm strongly in favour of this.

I'm not particularly fussed on the wordsmithing or the verbosity. In fact
one of the (unfortunate) primary uses of this document surely will be as
reference when a misbehavior occurs, so spelling at least some things out
in full might be useful in that case. The only concern I have on the
wordsmithing is if it became too much like the FreeBSD CoC - the example
thrown around has been "Don't make it personal, don't take it
personally"
which for me is way too terse and doesn't put enough onus on the aggresser
to be more polite in a cross-culture community. And that, in a nutshell, is
what separates our culture from that of some other projects.

I'm incredibly proud of the community to which I belong. PaulR mentioned
the number of women at our devmtgs as a (very rough) yardstick - that was
actually mentioned to me by someone who had attended a number of
conferences in the compiler/low-level-software field as being surprisingly
large in comparison to the others. I'm proud of that, and feel we need to
increase our inclusiveness.

I'm happy for this CoC to come in and codify the conventions of this
community. The way we treat people, especially newcomers, is exemplary in
my view and needs to continue. If this CoC can help that, so be it.

In fact, IMHO this thread has shown some of the hot-headedness that is
generally frowned upon in our community, so that make me even more in
favour of the CoC.

So +1 from me, and thanks for the hard work and the cat herding! :)

Cheers,

James



On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 at 07:29 Sean Silva via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 13 October 2015 at 18:59, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> We have *not* appointed any such committee at this point.
>> (...)
>> The appeal is to the board of the Foundation. I don't expect the
board to
>> *be* the committee here, quite the opposite.
>>
>>
>> This doesn't solve the problem. If the foundation appoints the
>> committee, appeals to the foundation are still open for abuse.
>>
>> Only democratic and transparent processes can work in this fashion,
>> and I don't see the foundation as being either.
>>
>>
>> I don't think that their job will be to impose moral authority, I
think
>> the
>> code of conduct is the basis they would be required to cite for any
>> decision. Their role should be much more focused on understanding what
has
>> happened, and ensuring it is responded to. I also think that is called
out
>> in the document.
>>
>>
>> So why the need to list the punishments and make sure that only
>> capital punishments can actually be appealed?
>>
>>
>> I'm surprised and saddened to hear you say this. I also don't
particularly
>> agree. I have interacted with almost every member of the foundation
board
>> as
>> a regular course of interacting with the community. The foundation is
>> completely handling the planning and running of the developer's
meeting.
>> Certainly, we're still in the infancy of figuring this stuff out,
but I
>> don't see a problematic lack of engagement.
>>
>>
>> Apart from the great work Tanya is doing with the LLVM meetings, I
>> don't absolutely anything coming from the foundation. Can you
>> elaborate?
>>
>> All in all, she was already doing great work before, so I take this
>> more as her personal merit than anything else.
>>
>> Since we're delving into this topic...
>>
>> I expected the foundation to own and improve the validation
>> infrastructure, and the web presence. So far I only saw Apple building
>> the great GreenBot, but when I wanted to help, it seemed this would be
>> something between me and on Apple employee.
>>
>> I also saw the migration to a new server (thanks again Tanya), but
>> that's very far from providing a stable infrastructure. If Tanya is
>> the only one doing things, of course she won't be able to do what
we
>> *need* in any reasonable time.
>>
>>
>> You are totally right. I am only one person. I do have help with
certain
>> aspects of the machine. What I’m aiming for is group of administrators
to
>> handle llvm.org. But I need to move all the infrastructure over to AWS
>> (I just moved the lists) and also separate out pieces of it (like perf)
to
>> another machine. I know that you have give me lots of advice in this
area,
>> and I’m sorry it hasn't been executed yet. There is a plan drafted
(with
>> input from more than just the board), but it has not been presented to
the
>> community yet.
>>
>> I expected the foundation sponsors to put in hardware and money to buy
>> servers, Amazon cloud instances, co-host testing devices with
>> universities in a way to foster inclusion and promote the project,
>> etc. Things that are obvious to me, but it seems got lost in the
>> foundation…
>>
>>
>> I’m sorry this is the perception. This is for sure the long term plan,
>> but many things have had to fall into place before . A lot of our
efforts
>> over the last year have been in actually establishing the Foundation as
a
>> whole. So this includes all the necessary legal, accounting, and other
>> pieces in place. These are all the things that are not at all
interesting
>> or really useful for the community, but they will be in the long term.
>>
>> I’d really like a better way to capture all of these great ideas. I’m
>> taking notes, but maybe we need another place (other than llvm-dev)
that
>> ideas can be shared.
>>
>>
>> I also don't see any transparency, not representation. We got a
memo
>> that it came into existence, than nothing else. I can't find any
>> document about the foundation except that blog post. As a non-profit,
>> I'd expect to be public memos, checks and balances, monthly
reports,
>> etc.
>>
>> This is entirely my fault (not the board as a whole) and its something
I
>> have been trying to rectify. You are exactly right. Everything we are
doing
>> should be 100% transparent. I have all of the board meeting minutes,
our
>> bylaws, everything that needs to go onto the website. Its something
that I
>> just didn’t make a high enough priority and I’m sorry about that. I
will
>> try to move this to the top of the list.
>>
>> If anyone wants copies of anything before then, I am more than happy to
>> send an email to you. Please do not hesitate to ask me.
>>
>
> Could you just throw stuff in the public LLVM SVN repo? Same way we have
> [lld] posts or [compiler-rt] posts on llvm-commits we would have
> [foundation] mailing list posts or whatever. Would also be nice in that
> llvm-commits is a natural avenue to disseminate information to involved
> developers.
>
> I'd definitely click into `[foundation] rXXXXXX - LLVM Foundation Oct
13
> 2015 meeting minutes` or whatever to take a look (that would be quite
> convenient for me actually).
>
> -- Sean Silva
>
>
>>
>> -Tanya
>>
>> I don't want to have those documents on my disk, I want them
public,
>> indexed by search engines, as soon as they're published.
>>
>> I can't see how the foundation represents my work in LLVM if they
>> essentially don't exist publicly, especially because there's no
way I
>> can influence. Representation is given, not taken.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> --renato
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151014/b251be50/attachment-0001.html>