[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev
2016-06-30T22:11:23Z

That's just a residual clause.
It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities here (IE if you
stalk and murder someone in the llvm community, you are going to get kicked
out of the community, regardless of if you did it in a controlled space)
I mean, i'm subject to legal ethics rules that are very similar, and those
could get me kicked out of an entire profession :)

I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside these
spaces may, in rare
cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the
conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social
standard."

But it's not, in practice, any different.

Basically, if you are looking for complete and total bright line proscribed
standards, they pretty much don't exist anywhere except in criminal
statutes :)



On Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 2:45 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
wrote:

> I expect Rafael's concern is because the code also says:
>
>
>
> In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare
> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them.
>
>
>
> So it can apply outside spaces explicitly sponsored by LLVM, in undefined
> circumstances.
>
> --paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of
*Daniel
> Berlin via cfe-dev
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 30, 2016 1:37 PM
> *To:* Rafael Espíndola
> *Cc:* llvm-dev; cfe-dev; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org); LLDB
> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an
> LLVM Code of Conduct
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/20160630/2bfed2a0/attachment.html>