similar to: 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

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 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,

----- 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 > ... > >

Greetings all, This has come up a few times, and I would like to resume the effort to establish an LLVM code of conduct. First and foremost, many thanks to Philip Reames who sat down with me several months ago and worked through a number of suggestions that I've tried to incorporate into an updated patch with the draft text: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741 I think his updates plus a few

> 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 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

On 10/14/2015 01:25 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:02 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org > <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote: > > On 14 October 2015 at 20:35, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > Related specifically

Hi, Given David's comments about an echo-chamber, I thought I might as well throw my oar in and say I'm strongly in favour of this. I'm not particularly fussed on the wordsmithing or the verbosity. In fact one of the (unfortunate) primary uses of this document surely will be as reference when a misbehavior occurs, so spelling at least some things out in full might be useful in that

On 05/05/2016 11:42 AM, C Bergström via llvm-dev wrote: > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:55 AM C Bergström <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> Chandler - I do not want to derail, hijack or change the topic of this >>> discussion - Would you be ok with me going into specific

On 14 October 2015 at 20:35, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Related specifically to the developers meeting, we are growing quite > rapidly. For the past few years, we have been increasing our attendance from > 50 at the start to now over 350 attendees. With this many people (and many > new to the community), it seems important to have a code of

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 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 >>

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:20:33PM +0100, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > On 13 October 2015 at 19:30, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > > For some of the reasons we at least need to make it clear the scope: > > http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/ > > Seems like a very personal opinion, and most

On 9 May 2016 at 03:07, C Bergström <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > As activity on the thread dies down and I guess it has been socialized > to the point of annoyance (myself and probably others based on private > emails).. I'll assume the current draft is mostly stable, but to > confirm, Chandler are you done playing with your CoC? I personally think the code is fine

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

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

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Bill Kelly via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: >> 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 ).

I’d like to second what Owen said. Thanks very much for the hard work on this, and I think that you’re picking up from a pretty good place with the document itself. – Steve > On May 5, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Owen Anderson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Chandler, > > I wanted to take a moment to thank you and Phil for your work on this document, and to

On 4 Jul 2016, at 12:27, Renato Golin via Openmp-dev <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 4 July 2016 at 00:42, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: >> Daniel claimed it was not different, even though he proposed the text. >> I think it is better, as "egregious" (even though it is qualitative) >> helps identify what