similar to: Code of Conduct Next Steps - Community feedback needed

> On Feb 17, 2020, at 10:06 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Tanya, > > Is there a reason for hosting things for review on Google Docs? We currently have both Phabricator and GitHub that work for review of any text-based format. When I click on a Google Docs link, I am asked to agree to a privacy policy that is very vague and I am

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

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

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 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 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 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

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 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 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 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

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

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;

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 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 ).

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 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 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

Proposed alternative DRAFT -------------------------- LLVM Code of Conduct (LCoC) Prologue: LLVM community as a whole strives for equality and respect in all areas. With this in mind, we want to establish a few words that help(s)? everyone understand what to do if there is ever questions or conflicts. Motto: Be respectful, have fun and do great engineering. LLVM Community members: People in