llvm dev - Feb 2020 - Code of Conduct Next Steps - Community feedback needed

I find this response quite offense. I am not a secretary sending an email to my
boss. My intent is not malicious. I asked him if the methods I proposed were not
sufficient as my goal is to include all input. Google docs is not an invalid way
to collaborate  on a text document. Is one way among many. It is not code in the
purest form of the word which we can debate. But that is not the point. No
format is perfect. Some people may be against github or Phabricator as the don’t
want want an account there or don’t like it for text documents.

I would really appreciate some thinking that I am not just trying to be
disagreeable or not trying to be flexible. I am not an evil person. I am
actually trying to do a good thing and meet the needs of as many individuals as
possible.

-Tanya
> On Feb 17, 2020, at 5:04 PM, C Bergström <cbergstrom at
pathscale.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 8:56 AM Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > On Feb 17, 2020, at 10:06 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Hi Tanya,
>> > 
>> > Is there a reason for hosting things for review on Google Docs? 
We currently have both Phabricator and GitHub that work for review of any
text-based format.  When I click on a Google Docs link, I am asked to agree to a
privacy policy that is very vague and I am somewhat uncomfortable agreeing to
it.
>> > 
>> 
>> David,
>> 
>> I understand not everyone wants to use Google docs which was why I gave
an option to reply via email as well. My intention on using Google docs is
really just based on my experience using it for docs that span different groups
of people and it is what I primarily use for text documents.
>> 
>> I would like everyone to feel like they have a way to respond and
provide feedback so please let me know if the options I have given do not work.
> 
> 
> I won't be actively participating in this, but I will be read-only
following it. I like github for this as well since it could be easier to track
the precise questions/objections and track that flow to resolution. Compared to
google docs which is like what a secretary might send to the boss, but I've
never seen used to handle a technical issue like this. To me this is
"code" and I'd love to see how questions are asked and how that
discussion evolves until resolution. Like a github issue.. Maybe google docs has
this and I've just been missing it. There's also the question of how
transparent you want this process to be and if you want it to be accessible to
every llvm developer. Telling David to just email you or making him agree to
some Google privacy thing isn't a very warm, friendly or productive start.
> 
> David - I'd propose to get a copy of things in their current state and
just fork it to github. Then invite others to open issues against it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200217/13fa51dc/attachment.html>

Hello everyone,

Tanya, thank you for putting the documents together, highly appreciated!

Both documents mention meetup organizers, so I think it makes sense to include
them into the conversation explicitly, as not everyone may follow this
discussion.
I'm cc'ing Arnaud as I think he is the right person to share the
message.

Another point: both documents mention that meetup organizers should be contacted
first, which is, imho, not the best option.
The meetup platform is a poor choice when it comes to communication (I missed
some messages couple of times). Additionally, not every user group is hosted on
meetup.com <http://meetup.com/>.
This implies that we should store contacts of organizers somewhere in a public
space, which may not fit every organizer. Also, the contacts should be
maintained and updated in a timely manner (e.g. an organizer stepped down,
another organizer joined, etc.).
With this in mind, I'd suggest that reports are always sent to the conduct
at llvm.org <mailto:conduct at llvm.org>, and from there distributed to
the organizers if needed.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Alex.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200218/ff37340d/attachment.html>

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 10:31, Alex Denisov via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> With this in mind, I'd suggest that reports are always sent to the
conduct at llvm.org, and from there distributed to the organizers if needed.
+1 to routing *everything* through a single entry point. The three
documents are already confusing enough with dates and processes, etc.

Related question: is this email going to a person, a group or a
ticketing system?

I'd strongly suggest we have a ticketing system. This way we can track
everything, update cc lists, create subgroups to handle requests, hide
access from CoC members, if they're involved, etc. These systems also
make it very easy to follow up, add resolutions, documents, links,
comments from committee members, closure type, etc. This makes
creating a report at the end of the year much easier.

It's really hard to do any that with groups (CC all-minus-person, have
some dropbox for evidence, track email body for keywords), and the
information will be lost, or at least, stored in a very confusing and
decentralised way. Worse still, when people leave the committee (or
the project), all that information, potentially including confidential
personal data, will be laying around in their mail servers.

I'd very strongly suggest this doesn't fall into a single person, for
obvious reasons. Even though there could be usually a single person
handling the requests, there should always be other people copied on
every new request.

cheers,
--renato