[PATCH] D61550: Add recommendations on how to start a meetup in your city

[Arnaud A. de Grandmaison via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

aadg added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/MeetupGuidelines.rst:14
+  tailored towards offline events
+  (`example <https://berlincodeofconduct.org>`_).
+* Although not mandatory, your group could be using the https://meetup.com
----------------
AlexDenisov wrote:
> mehdi_amini wrote:
> > AlexDenisov wrote:
> > > mehdi_amini wrote:
> > > > This is tricky, if you organize an LLVM Social and intend to advertise it on the LLVM mailing list, the LLVM CoC should always apply*, it'd be strange to have a CoC for the social which is less specific than the LLVM one for instance.
> > > > 
> > > > *: the CoC mentions that it applies to "LLVM events such as the developer meetings and socials".
> > > > 
> > > Hm, I certainly missed that. In Berlin, we are not using LLVM's CoC. I think the reason was that it did not exist when we started (I just checked, and indeed the meetup group was created two weeks after the first draft has landed).
> > > I can remove the line about "any other CoC" if there is a strict requirement for the socials to follow LLVM's CoC.
> > > 
> > > If that's the case, then we'll need to reconsider code of conduct we are following at Berlin socials, but honestly, I don't think it's worth the effort, especially given that Berlin CoC does not contradict LLVM's CoC.
> > I would at least check with the LLVM Foundation what is the appropriate language to use.
> > 
> > It is possible that this would work for everyone: "The LLVM `CoC <https://llvm.org/docs/CodeOfConduct.html>`_ applies to such social events in general, if you'd like to pick another one (`example <https://berlincodeofconduct.org>`_) please check with the LLVM Foundation if it is compatible with the LLVM one."
> Agreed, I like how you put it!
> I will use your wording unless we get other suggestions.
> 
> @tonic, @aadg what do you think?
I think we should only mention the LLVM CoC. I would prefer to avoid fragmentation, and the LLVM CoC is what people should be expecting when they go to an LLVM event, so kind of like the least surprise rule. In case the LLVM CoC could not apply, the right approach is probably to fix it rather than working around it.
Also, do we want this to be just a recommendation ? As an organizer (leaving LLVM out of the picture), this is definitely a recommendation to other organizers. But from an LLVM community point of view, I believe our CoC should be mandatory.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D61550/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D61550