Larry Gritz via llvm-dev
2016-May-07 18:55 UTC
[llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct
Weighing in as a mostly-lurker: A CoC is a great idea. I'm ok with Chandler's current draft. I'm ok with his first draft. I'm ok with just adopting a standard one like Swift did. I think it's important to enumerate several of the most common kinds of harassment, and it's understood that it's not a comprehensive list. I think the pedantry of this thread is unwarranted; the very real cancer of pervasive tech-community harassment dwarfs the slim chances of the CoC itself being somehow abused, so I think it's a no-brainer to adopt it and move on. We can always revisit if it becomes a problem in practice, but my intuition is that a year from now it will have long since faded as a point of controversy. Many thanks to everybody who has participated in drafting the CoC. You're getting more grief than you deserve. -- Larry Gritz lg at larrygritz.com
C Bergström via llvm-dev
2016-May-09 02:07 UTC
[llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct
As activity on the thread dies down and I guess it has been socialized to the point of annoyance (myself and probably others based on private emails).. I'll assume the current draft is mostly stable, but to confirm, Chandler are you done playing with your CoC? As a side note: I'm a bit disappointed by some of the "leadership" around here, who immediately attacked my alternative instead of trying to give more constructive feedback or having an open mind. ------------ Moving forward - A few questions 1) How will it be decided if this goes into effect? Will the counsel of 7 rule, just ask for +1 on the mailing list, private ballot, draw straws.. or something else.. 2) Who is actually eligible to vote 3) How are revisions/errata to be handled in the future?
Renato Golin via llvm-dev
2016-May-09 17:22 UTC
[llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct
On 9 May 2016 at 03:07, C Bergström <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> As activity on the thread dies down and I guess it has been socialized > to the point of annoyance (myself and probably others based on private > emails).. I'll assume the current draft is mostly stable, but to > confirm, Chandler are you done playing with your CoC?I personally think the code is fine as it is. However, we still need to sort out two main issues: 1. The committee * How is this committee going to be formed? Vote? Nomination? From where? By whom? * How many people will compose the committee? A few? A lot? * How do we know the committee is not just being fair, but truthful to the code and the community? Some form of auditing is in order. * How long are these people going to stay? How are they going to be replaced? * If we find problems, how can we propose changes and who can they be replaced with? Also, another suggestion, is to have interim sub-committees for specific cases. For example, if something happened around the ARM code base, me, Tim, James could help providing insight, and ensuring due diligence. 2. The code itself One of the arguments in favour of long lists of minorities and harassment examples is that the list has to be explicit to avoid doubt, but to be precise and fair, we need to update the code to reflect the problems we face in the future. Regardless of my opinion, this seems to be a larger consensus than the committee situation. But without the ability and a defined process to actually change the code, that promise is void. So, I'll repeat your question:> How are revisions/errata to be handled in the future?It's perfectly possible that neither the composition and dynamics of the committee, nor the revision process belong to either the code of conduct or the reporting guidelines. But we must discuss and reach a consensus about this before both go in. I don't think strong handed decisions will be for the good of the community, with or without the code. We are a community that goes beyond its individual members. We have values of respect, inclusion and equality that go beyond individual countries. We have never had a strong handed decision this large in the community as far as I can remember, and doing so now would go against the values that we all agree are good and we want to keep with the code. I think the crucial things people are asking now is transparency and representativeness. I don't think any modern community can thrive without either these values. Nor I think we can drop them on the floor because of other values. There's always a way to keep *all* your values, it just takes longer to reach consensus. cheers, --renato
Seemingly Similar Threads
- Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct
- Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct
- Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct
- Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct
- Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct