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

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 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

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 22:57, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org> wrote: > The major weapon of harassers is arguing whether something is actually > harassing. It is difficult to enforce a CoC if you have to have a month long > nasty argument about whether it was violated. It burns out people like you. The major weapon about enforcers is *not* wanting to argue. Harassment is a very

On 6 May 2016 at 23:31, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org> wrote: > I am not going to argue with you anymore. I hope this isn't how we'll deal with CoC violations. > Please stop twisting my words. I'm certainly not twisting your words. I'm sorry you feel that way. I explicitly said I was confused, and I asked questions to understand what the point was. This

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>

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 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 Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 6 May 2016 at 19:16, Philip Reames via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > 1) Person A makes a documented serious physical threat against Person B > who > > is a member of the LLVM community. Person A does not then get to come > into > >

On 05/06/2016 11:03 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: > > > On 5/6/16 11:43 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> >> 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

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 > >>

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

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Renato Golin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 2:06:30 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct > > On 5

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 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 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. >

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

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

+1 for this TL;DR suggestion - you can guarantee most people would read < 7 short bullet points. Cheers, -Neil. On 06/05/16 15:53, Arnaud Allard de Grandmaison via llvm-dev wrote: > For what it's worth, I think this is an improved version of the CoC, > and I'm OK with it. Thanks to Chandler and all those who have been > working on it. > > It's not perfect ---

Am 05.05.2016 um 23:19 schrieb Tanya Lattner: > 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. Regardless of what kind CoC you have: if it comes to having to enforce it, the community has stopped being open and welcoming. So I think this approach is