llvm dev - Jun 2016 - FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

Hello folks,

As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong) series of
discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project as a
whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
code review.

The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the end
there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now. It
isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around forming
the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording is at a
good point of compromise in a challenging area.

Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the draft. I’m
hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and I’m
hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee and
resolving any issues around reporting so we can make this an official part
of the community.

I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a new
discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on llvm-dev if
folks want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh ones, but I
would encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has already
taken place to avoid revisiting areas that have already been heavily
discussed.

Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on the
mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this topic.

Thanks,
-Chandler

[1]: Prior announcements:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html

[2]: Existing threads:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160630/535e2643/attachment.html>

So discussion has been beaten to death and based on your comments - it
seems you anticipate strong support. Is any (in)formal vote planned? Will
this just get enacted, "who" decided..

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:55 AM, Chandler Carruth via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong) series of
> discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project as a
> whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
> code review.
>
> The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the end
> there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now. It
> isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around forming
> the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording is at a
> good point of compromise in a challenging area.
>
> Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the draft. I’m
> hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and I’m
> hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee and
> resolving any issues around reporting so we can make this an official part
> of the community.
>
> I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a new
> discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on llvm-dev if
> folks want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh ones, but I
> would encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has already
> taken place to avoid revisiting areas that have already been heavily
> discussed.
>
> Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on the
> mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this topic.
>
> Thanks,
> -Chandler
>
> [1]: Prior announcements:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html
>
> [2]: Existing threads:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html
>
>
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160701/3d41603a/attachment.html>

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:18 PM C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
wrote:
> So discussion has been beaten to death and based on your comments - it
> seems you anticipate strong support.
>
I think there has been explicit strong support on the threads.

> Is any (in)formal vote planned? Will this just get enacted, "who"
decided..
>
I don't think we need any kind of vote. I think there is pretty clear and
widespread consensus. It's not unanimous of course, but I don't think
that
is a requirement or reason to have some kind of vote. If there are large
numbers of contributors who actively disagree with this direction, I think
they have had many opportunities to speak up (and thanks for doing just
that on prior threads). And folks can always speak up now or in the future.
If there is a clear change of consensus, the community can and should
respond to that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160630/ed9bf768/attachment.html>

Thanks, Chandler, for all your work on this. I’m glad to see this moving
forward.

-Jim
> On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong) series of
discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project as a whole
over on the llvm-dev thread and the http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
<http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741> code review.
> 
> The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the end
there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now. It isn’t
perfect, and there are still some important questions around forming the
advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording is at a good
point of compromise in a challenging area.
> 
> Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the draft. I’m
hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and I’m hoping to
see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee and resolving any
issues around reporting so we can make this an official part of the community.
> 
> I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a new
discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on llvm-dev if folks
want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh ones, but I would
encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has already taken place
to avoid revisiting areas that have already been heavily discussed.
> 
> Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on the
mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this topic.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Chandler
> 
> [1]: Prior announcements:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html>
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html>
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html>
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html>
> 
> [2]: Existing threads:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html>
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html>
>
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html>_______________________________________________
> 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/20160630/f489937c/attachment.html>

I am strongly opposed to it as it stands.

Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of
conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in
channels not related to llvm at all.

With this in place I will not consider myself a member of the llvm
community anymore and would be terrified to interact with another llvm
developer in a social setting.

Rafael

On 30 June 2016 at 14:55, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong) series of
> discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project as a
> whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
> code review.
>
> The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the end
> there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now. It
> isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around forming
> the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording is at a
> good point of compromise in a challenging area.
>
> Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the draft. I’m
> hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and I’m
> hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee and
> resolving any issues around reporting so we can make this an official part
> of the community.
>
> I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a new
> discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on llvm-dev if
> folks want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh ones, but I
> would encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has already
> taken place to avoid revisiting areas that have already been heavily
> discussed.
>
> Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on the
> mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this topic.
>
> Thanks,
> -Chandler
>
> [1]: Prior announcements:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html
>
> [2]: Existing threads:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html
>
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>

Thanks a lot for spearheading this and seeing it move forward. It's
absolutely appreciated.

Thank you.

-eric

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM Chandler Carruth via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong) series of
> discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project as a
> whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
> code review.
>
> The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the end
> there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now. It
> isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around forming
> the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording is at a
> good point of compromise in a challenging area.
>
> Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the draft. I’m
> hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and I’m
> hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee and
> resolving any issues around reporting so we can make this an official part
> of the community.
>
> I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a new
> discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on llvm-dev if
> folks want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh ones, but I
> would encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has already
> taken place to avoid revisiting areas that have already been heavily
> discussed.
>
> Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on the
> mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this topic.
>
> Thanks,
> -Chandler
>
> [1]: Prior announcements:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html
>
> [2]: Existing threads:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html
>
>
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160630/552d976d/attachment.html>

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
wrote:
> I am strongly opposed to it as it stands.
>
> Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of
> conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in
> channels not related to llvm at all.
>
> errr, it says:
"This code of conduct applies to all spaces managed by the LLVM project or
The
LLVM Foundation. This includes IRC channels, mailing lists, bug trackers,
LLVM
vents such as the developer meetings and socials, and any other forums
created
by the project that the community uses for communication. "


How does this cover channels not related to llvm?

> With this in place I will not consider myself a member of the llvm
> community anymore and would be terrified to interact with another llvm
> developer in a social setting.
>
>
That would be sad, but i guess i'm not sure what is causing that. Is it
that there is discretion in there that you are afraid may apply to you if
taken to some extreme?

> Rafael
>
> On 30 June 2016 at 14:55, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong) series of
> > discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project
as
> a
> > whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
> > code review.
> >
> > The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the
end
> > there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now.
It
> > isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around
> forming
> > the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording is
> at a
> > good point of compromise in a challenging area.
> >
> > Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the draft.
> I’m
> > hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and I’m
> > hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee and
> > resolving any issues around reporting so we can make this an official
> part
> > of the community.
> >
> > I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a new
> > discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on
llvm-dev
> if
> > folks want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh ones,
but I
> > would encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has
already
> > taken place to avoid revisiting areas that have already been heavily
> > discussed.
> >
> > Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on the
> > mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this
topic.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Chandler
> >
> > [1]: Prior announcements:
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html
> >
> > [2]: Existing threads:
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html
> >
>
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-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/20160630/a4038f7e/attachment.html>

Likewise.  The clearly stated intended consequences are well worth promoting,
and any unintended consequences can be addressed with good judgement and ongoing
revision.  Thank you for your efforts to make sure LLVM remains friendly and
inclusive.

Kate Stone k8stone at apple.com <mailto:k8stone at apple.com>
 Xcode Low Level Tools
> On Jun 30, 2016, at 1:18 PM, Jim Grosbach via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Chandler, for all your work on this. I’m glad to see this moving
forward.
> 
> -Jim
> 
>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
>> 
>> Hello folks,
>> 
>> As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong) series of
discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project as a whole
over on the llvm-dev thread and the http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
<http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741> code review.
>> 
>> The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the end
there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now. It isn’t
perfect, and there are still some important questions around forming the
advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording is at a good
point of compromise in a challenging area.
>> 
>> Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the draft.
I’m hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and I’m
hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee and resolving
any issues around reporting so we can make this an official part of the
community.
>> 
>> I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a new
discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on llvm-dev if folks
want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh ones, but I would
encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has already taken place
to avoid revisiting areas that have already been heavily discussed.
>> 
>> Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on the
mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this topic.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Chandler
>> 
>> [1]: Prior announcements:
>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html>
>> 
>> [2]: Existing threads:
>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html>
>>
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html>_______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160630/2d79f38b/attachment.html>

Thank you for your continuing efforts on the Code of Conduct! I
appreciate the efforts and strongly support this direction.

~Aaron

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong) series of
> discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project as a
> whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
> code review.
>
> The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the end
> there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now. It
> isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around forming
> the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording is at a
> good point of compromise in a challenging area.
>
> Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the draft. I’m
> hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and I’m
> hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee and
> resolving any issues around reporting so we can make this an official part
> of the community.
>
> I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a new
> discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on llvm-dev if
> folks want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh ones, but I
> would encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has already
> taken place to avoid revisiting areas that have already been heavily
> discussed.
>
> Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on the
> mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this topic.
>
> Thanks,
> -Chandler
>
> [1]: Prior announcements:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html
>
> [2]: Existing threads:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html
>
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>
> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
"cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev
> (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org)" <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
"LLDB" <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 5:34:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of
Conduct
> 
> Thank you for your continuing efforts on the Code of Conduct! I
> appreciate the efforts and strongly support this direction.
> 
> ~Aaron
+1

 -Hal
> 
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong) series
> > of
> > discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM
> > project as a
> > whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the
> > http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
> > code review.
> >
> > The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the
> > end
> > there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have
> > now. It
> > isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around
> > forming
> > the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording
> > is at a
> > good point of compromise in a challenging area.
> >
> > Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the
> > draft. I’m
> > hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and
> > I’m
> > hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee
> > and
> > resolving any issues around reporting so we can make this an
> > official part
> > of the community.
> >
> > I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a new
> > discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on
> > llvm-dev if
> > folks want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh ones,
> > but I
> > would encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has
> > already
> > taken place to avoid revisiting areas that have already been
> > heavily
> > discussed.
> >
> > Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on
> > the
> > mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this
> > topic.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Chandler
> >
> > [1]: Prior announcements:
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html
> >
> > [2]: Existing threads:
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html
> >
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> 
-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory