similar to: RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:55 AM David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 13 Oct 2015, at 02:42, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > If you have questions, please see feel free to contact the LLVM > Foundation Code of Conduct Advisory Committee by emailing conduct at llvm.org > . > > My main

> > As long as the committee remains unimportant, things will be fine. > > As soon as the committee becomes important, the LLVM project has already > > degenerated into a snake pit, and is likely to fork anyway. > > This sounds like an oxymoron, as if this policy only makes sense if > the non-representative foundation never tries to enforce it in a way > that the

----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Y Knight via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at llvm.org> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 6:08:08 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct > ... > >

> 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

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 13 October 2015 at 18:59, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> We have *not* appointed any such committee at this point. >> (...) >> The appeal is to the board of the Foundation. I don't expect the board to >>

Renato, Renato Golin wrote: > On 15 October 2015 at 09:35, Bill Kelly via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote: >>> However, it is incredibly >>> important to not expect or demand that a person *you have made feel >>> unsafe* take the time to explain why. >> >> I feel what you have written

Am 13.10.2015 um 12:52 schrieb Renato Golin via llvm-dev: > On 13 October 2015 at 02:42, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> 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. > > Hi Chandler, > > I agree we need such guidelines, and I truly

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:23 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > From: "Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > > > Some back story here. I have gotten many requests through email and > > at the developer meetings about having a Code of Conduct and > > specifically having one for LLVM Developer Meetings. It has been

On 13 October 2015 at 17:16, Kuperstein, Michael M via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The FreeBSD CoC is, IMHO, much better in this respect ( https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html ). Nice! This is so succinct and beautiful! It doesn't need an overseeing foundation to take opaque decisions, and focus on what's really important: the code. I

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:45 PM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> 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. > Well, water and bridge and all. =/

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

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):

Am 14.10.2015 um 14:57 schrieb Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev: > Is there an ongoing problem with the types of discussions on this, and > other LLVM-related lists? Not currently. > What problem is the proposed CoC trying to solve? Stop possible future harrassment before it can happen. It's a legitimate concern actually.

Am 13.10.2015 um 14:02 schrieb Renato Golin: > On 13 October 2015 at 12:37, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev >> Just curious: Do people ever do it the other way around? > > What do you mean? Report first, then try to resolve directly. My experience is that people try to resolve things directly and ask for help only when they find it doesn't work, but YMMV.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:16 AM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 13 October 2015 at 18:59, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > We have *not* appointed any such committee at this point. > > (...) > > The appeal is to the board of the Foundation. I don't expect the board to > > *be* the committee

Joachim, I think we pretty strongly disagree here. On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:39 PM Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Am 13.10.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev: > > > > This is a *specific* thing that is called out time and again as important > > to having an effective code of conduct in all of the research I have

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

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

> 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

On 13 October 2015 at 17:09, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I assume the end objective of such a policy is to have more effective > communications, so it would be nice to have some examples to avoid it > instead hampering communications by pushing unnecessary political > correctness. +2!!! > * Small, on the side jokes are OK if people are not