similar to: FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

Thanks, Chandler, for all your work on this. I’m glad to see this moving forward. -Jim > On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > 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

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I am strongly opposed to it as it stands. > > Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of > conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in > channels not related to llvm at all. > > errr, it says: "This code of conduct applies to all

Thank you for your continuing efforts on the Code of Conduct! I appreciate the efforts and strongly support this direction. ~Aaron On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > 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

That's just a residual clause. It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities here (IE if you stalk and murder someone in the llvm community, you are going to get kicked out of the community, regardless of if you did it in a controlled space) I mean, i'm subject to legal ethics rules that are very similar, and those could get me kicked out of an entire profession :) I

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev > (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org)" <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>,

I expect Rafael's concern is because the code also says: In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them. So it can apply outside spaces explicitly sponsored by LLVM, in undefined circumstances. --paulr From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Berlin via cfe-dev Sent:

I am strongly opposed to it as it stands. Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in channels not related to llvm at all. With this in place I will not consider myself a member of the llvm community anymore and would be terrified to interact with another llvm developer in a social setting. Rafael On 30

I don’t know what you meant to imply by “residual clause” — if you meant “it’s not particularly important”, then I suggest it is left out entirely. Apparently at least a few of us have interpreted it to say “the committee reserves the right to kick you out for any behaviour that violates our standards which you exhibit anywhere, even if it is completely unrelated to the llvm community”.

So discussion has been beaten to death and based on your comments - it seems you anticipate strong support. Is any (in)formal vote planned? Will this just get enacted, "who" decided.. On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:55 AM, Chandler Carruth via lldb-dev < lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello folks, > > As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong) series of

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

> Your report will still be kept confidential exactly as above, but also > feel free to (anonymously if needed) email conduct at llvm.org if needed. I have slight reservations towards this. A general conduct email is good, but there are cases where you would like to contact individuals. This is for example, when the report goes against a member of the conduct team itself or the LLVM core

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