search for: conductive

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > +1 to the general idea of a CoC > > A couple of specific thoughts: > > 1) It would have been nice for this not to appeared out of thin air. In an ideal world, a previous update would have mentioned ongoing thought and research in this area. > Some back story here. I

LLVM Community, The LLVM Code of Conduct has been in draft mode for several years now. In order to finalize the Code of Conduct, there are 3 steps left to complete: Draft an Incident Response Guide. This guide is intended for someone who is considering reporting a potential code of conduct violation. You can view and comment on the proposed guide here (or by email if you prefer):

Greetings everyone, On behalf of the board of the LLVM Foundation, I’d like to start the process of introducing a formal code of conduct for the community. For a long time, various members of the community have been enforcing basic reasonable and respectful behavior, but to an outsider this may not be obvious. A public code of conduct advertises the behavior we expect of community members and

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > | It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities > > Not looking for that. Looking to avoid being trolled. ("Trolled" isn't > the right word here but I've lost track of what the right one is. Hopefully > my intent is clear enough.) > I'm really not

Chandler, It's been 5 months since the last update I've seen on the proposed Code of Conduct. What is the current status of this? I'd really like to see the Code of Conduct committed. Last I recall, we still had some serious concerns and ongoing discussion about the Reporting Policy - I think you had a new draft to send out? - but the CoC had gotten pretty wide agreement. Can

Proposed alternative DRAFT -------------------------- LLVM Code of Conduct (LCoC) Prologue: LLVM community as a whole strives for equality and respect in all areas. With this in mind, we want to establish a few words that help(s)? everyone understand what to do if there is ever questions or conflicts. Motto: Be respectful, have fun and do great engineering. LLVM Community members: People in

> Also, the problem with enumerating all the inacceptable behaviour is > that the text tends to become TL;DR. Which means permanent discomfort: I > never fully read the rules, so I'm never fully sure that I'm not > violating the CoC, nor am I sure whether others violate it. > > In terms of size and complexity, the proposed CoC is shorter than the > typical bulletin

Dear Colleagues/Developers/R enthusiasts, Would it be possible to develop a code of conduct (CoC) document for R lists, CRAN submissions that all developers/maintainers to follow? This may help all of us to better communicate and move forward together. There is a similar effort from Python community, here are the links: * https://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2017-August/022044.html *

While I'm replying to Renato here, that is mostly because there are too many replies on this subject, and too many of them have wandered off into other topics. I want to specifically address the concerns with verbosity. For example: On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:52 AM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > I also agree that some descriptions are too verbose, and trying to

I like the NCoC approach, actually. I think the community can manage itself quite well. Echoing a prior response---if this community really needs a set of rules, then it has already deteriorated. We are not there and it doesn't look like we are going in that direction. The FreeBSD CoC also looks reasonable, and if any CoC is needed, I find this one more appealing. -Krzysztof On

Am 06.05.2016 um 01:26 schrieb Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev: > > There are > many many people who aren’t even commenting at all because they fear > being attacked in this thread. Now you're contradicting LLVM's own description that it's a friendly community. Also: How many is "many, many", actually? How many of these are really in fear, how many are just trying

Greetings all, First off, thanks to everyone who contributed to the initial discussion thread. Judging by the responses from that thread, there seems to pretty broad interest in pursuing this. There also seem to be a few concerns. =] I'm including an updated draft based on the feedback, and I'll also try to break down the major points I've seen of discussion. Sorry for the long email,

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > I'm not sure why you're stuck on thinking I want an enumeration of > offenses. > Sorry, it's because i don't see a way to give you the below without it :) > What I'm looking for (and AFAICT also Rafael and maybe other people) is a > clearer statement that

On 5/5/2016 4:19 PM, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > Having a code of conduct like this is just as bad as having no code of conduct at all. It trivializes the importance of a code of conduct and its pretty much impossible to enforce. Code of conduct should reflect the community standards, not define them. These standards come from the minds of the members of the community. A CoC that

This actually was discussed at EuroLLVM. Several other things were occupying my time that have in the last month cleared out, and I'm expecting to have an update to the CoC stuff in the next few weeks. It hasn't been forgotten though. =] On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:20 PM Philip Reames via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Chandler, > > It's been 5 months

hello, I am very new to R. My current data set is a mix of values and categories. It is a geoscience data set, with values per rock sample. Case in point, each sample belongs to a lithology class, and each sample has several physical property measurements (density, porosity...). I want to be able to plot these physical properties for all samples in each lithology class. this is how i'm doing

On 5 May 2016 at 23:06, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org> wrote: > The point is that you wouldn’t know that from looking at the alternative code of conduct. I would need to spend months pouring through mailing lists posts and watching the community to feel its a good and safe place. Right, this is a very good point for having something written down. > One of the many reasons

Great, glad to hear there's an update on the way. Is there anything I can assist with? Philip On 03/22/2016 05:21 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > This actually was discussed at EuroLLVM. > > Several other things were occupying my time that have in the last > month cleared out, and I'm expecting to have an update to the CoC > stuff in the next few weeks. It hasn't

On 5 May 2016 at 22:19, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Having a code of conduct like this is just as bad as having no code of conduct at all. It trivializes the importance of a code of conduct and its pretty much impossible to enforce. The same way you feel about this code, we feel about the alternative. It's only a matter of perspective. >

Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > I want to be super clear, the foundation is not insisting on anything, nor > can it. > > **I** am making this proposal as an active and long time contributor to > LLVM. Many other members of the community have also expressed support for > this on this and previous threads. But our support is given as