[llvm-dev] RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

On 13 October 2015 at 12:37, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I wouldn't put that into the code of conduct but in the Tips & Tricks for
> Successful Community Interaction text.

Not my intention, either. I just mentioned as a rationale for
including the "check intentions first" topic, which is important even
on two closely related people, because of the nature of emails, IRCs,
time zones (I'm too tired when you're not), etc.


> Just curious: Do people ever do it the other way around?

What do you mean?


> In particular, dwelling on the topic much gives an impression of LLVM being
> a community that needs a detailed response to physical threats.
> I wouldn't want to give that impression even if that were the case, to avoid
> attracting the types that like a more violent community.

Precisely my point. :)


> As long as the committee remains unimportant, things will be fine.
> As soon as the committee becomes important, the LLVM project has already
> degenerated into a snake pit, and is likely to fork anyway.

This sounds like an oxymoron, as if this policy only makes sense if
the non-representative foundation never tries to enforce it in a way
that the community doesn't accept. And if it does, the rest will flee.
Personally, I think this is a very unstable situation.

The foundation has some very important roles it can play in the
community, and mediating conflicts is one of them. But there are
others, for instance, making sure the conferences remain relevant,
improving testing and validation on supported targets, supporting
robust web infrastructure (pages, documents, mail, IRC), fostering the
use of LLVM on open and closed source projects, etc.

I'd argue that we all want the foundation to be very important in the
community as a whole, but for that to happen, we need representation.
Right now, the only visible part they're taking in the community is
related to the conferences (and that, they do well, though this is
probably more Tanya's merits than the foundation, as she was already
doing it well before). It's interesting that the first public
appearance becomes the unilateral and opaque enforcement of
"community" guidelines.


> So it may be undemocratic, but people can easily fork the situation,
> something that you can't do in a state.

I lost the metaphor, here... :)

cheers,
--renato