similar to: Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct

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

Am 05.05.2016 um 10:58 schrieb C Bergström via llvm-dev: > Sincerely and pragmatically - what do you think will be different > after this is in place.. Bureaucracy is great, but what's broken or > pandemic that you're trying to fix? From the last discussion, I gather that it's an attempt to prevent damage before it can happen. I'm quite sceptical about that. It's

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

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 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

Weighing in as a mostly-lurker: A CoC is a great idea. I'm ok with Chandler's current draft. I'm ok with his first draft. I'm ok with just adopting a standard one like Swift did. I think it's important to enumerate several of the most common kinds of harassment, and it's understood that it's not a comprehensive list. I think the pedantry of this thread is unwarranted;

On 5 May 2016, at 12:14, Charles Davis via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The last sentence of the third paragraph bothers me: > >> In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect >> a person's ability to participate within them. > ​This essentially gives the committee carte blanche to police our thoughts no matter where we

On 5 May 2016 at 13:23, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote: > Is the list PG, PG-13, R or at what level do "we" adults all consider > "ok". Even on broadcast tv (in the US) you'll hear some profanity. > (context) > https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts Excellent context! > Some people have pointed

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 *

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Chris > Lattner via llvm-dev > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 4:36 PM > To: Renato Golin > Cc: llvm-dev > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM > code of conduct > > On May 5, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at

On 05/06/2016 09:02 AM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev wrote: >>> Say what you want about the Linux kernel community, but you can't >>> call >>> it immature. You can call the behaviour of some of its people >>> immature, but the community itself is not by a long shot. >> But there are reasonable people who will not interact with that community because

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 21:47, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The Swift community has been using the standard "Contributor Covenant” to > good effect: > https://swift.org/community/#code-of-conduct > http://contributor-covenant.org > > Why do we need to “innovate" here? Hi Chris, I think the swift code is simple, and albeit

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:42 AM C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> 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 > >>

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

On Friday, May 6, 2016, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 6 May 2016 at 19:34, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > This isn't just about what we can do today, but about explaining it to > > people who haven't seen us do it/don't know what the community norms > are. So > > that when

On 6 May 2016 at 22:21, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> How many is "many, many", actually? How many of these are really in fear, how many are just trying to impose their mindset without actually planning to contribute in earnest, how many are so fearful that they should really seek professional help? > > And this is illustrating my

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

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

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:04 PM Jon Roelofs via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Friday, May 6, 2016, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: >> >>> On 6 May 2016 at 19:34, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>