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

Joachim, I think we pretty strongly disagree here.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:39 PM Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Am 13.10.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev:
> >
> > This is a *specific* thing that is called out time and again as
important
> > to having an effective code of conduct in all of the research I have
done
> > on the subject. Here is a really good, and fairly canonical source:
> >
> >
>
http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/
>
> That's an activist site. Also, instructions how to construct a CoC
> according to these activist's ideas.
>
I don't entirely agree (they enumerate on their site all of the things they
work on). But they certainly are advocating strongly, for example:
"we encourage you to continue supporting women in open technology and
culture by continuing and building on the Ada Initiative’s work"

I agree with this goal, and I am suggesting that the LLVM community has
long operated in a way that strives towards it, and we can do so even
better through a formal code of conduct.

I think that this makes them an excellent resource on how to most
effectively pursue this goal (and related goals).

It's not research. Not on the actual effects of having a
CoC.
>
Reading these and other resources is the research I did. I'm not claiming
it is statistically significant or contains unassailable data. I do think
it offers useful and relevant guidance for the community.

Am 13.10.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Chandler Carruth via
llvm-dev:
> > Now, I understand that for many of you (in fact, I suspect for the
> > overwhelming majority of you!) these details aren't necessary. As
I have
> > said before, the LLVM community has been very effectively keeping its
> > forums civil and polite for a long time. But I think we should
consider
> > that having a code of conduct and having it be detailed might be
> important
> > for *others*.
>
> Yes it might.
> What are the numbers?

One is one too many. The number is more than one.
> People who have serious concerns about participating safely in a community
> > should have some way to be reassured about what is expected within our
> > community. A detailed and documented code of conduct is the best way I
> know
> > of to advertise that this is a safe and welcoming space. This
isn't just
> a
> > hypothetical either. I personally struggled to feel safe within the
LLVM
> > community many years ago, and I have had many people specifically call
> out
> > how excited they are to see even a *chance* that the LLVM community
will
> > explicitly take a stance here.
>
> How many?
>
More than one. The numbers don't matter. This is the right thing to do.
> Another (smaller) benefit that a detailed code of conduct can provide is a
> > reminder. While I try to behave to the best of my abilities, sometimes
I
> > have needed a reminder to cool down a bit. I suspect others have had
> > similar experiences. Having some details can help us consider things
that
> > we might not usually consider on a day-to-day basis.
>
> Yes, but again I think it's too detailed.
>
We disagree. Restating your position won't really move this discussion
forward. Thank you for stating your position, but I think the community can
and should move forward.

Actually I'm not yet convinced that LLVM really needs a CoC.


Many, many people within the community are, and so it does not seem useful
to debate this.

Also, being welcoming isn't necessary high on the priority list.


Being welcoming *is* high on our priority list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/00aeb7b0/attachment.html>

On 10/13/2015 6:37 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
wrote:
> Many, many people within the community are, and so it does not seem
> useful to debate this.
You mean "you're getting CoC no matter what you say"?

Was there a thread asking if we want a CoC?

-Krzysztof

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

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:08 AM Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 10/13/2015 6:37 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote:
> > Many, many people within the community are, and so it does not seem
> > useful to debate this.
>
> You mean "you're getting CoC no matter what you say"?
>
No, I meant exactly what I said.

> Was there a thread asking if we want a CoC?
>
That is one question I had at the beginning of the thread. I knew my
opinion, those of other members of the board and several others in the
community. But certainly I hadn't polled everyone yet.

However, if you look at the thread, there have been *many* members of the
community from all over that have explicitly stated that they supported
having a code of conduct. Several first wanted to understand the motivation
(which seems entirely reasonable). We're still having spirited debates
about the particulars. But I don't see a significant number of people
actively objecting to having one at all.

My statement here was at the end of the day and reflecting on the fact that
there seemed to be very widespread support for at least one aspect of the
thread, and trying to encourage further debate where it would be most
useful.

Perhaps my reading of the thread was wrong, I'm just trying to gauge the
responses as best as I can.

-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151014/a7ba427d/attachment.html>