[llvm-dev] RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct
Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Oct 13 10:59:48 PDT 2015
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:55 AM David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>
> 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 concern with this document is that it is appointing the LLVM
> Foundation Code of Conduct Advisory Committee as the arbiters and judges
> (with enforcement powers) over the LLVM community
This is an incredibly important point, and I'm sorry that it got lost. Not
sure if it just got lost in editing or it just wasn't clear.
We have *not* appointed any such committee at this point. The goal was to
first get the basis for handling these issues in place, and *then* to work
out the logistics of establishing the committee. We will do that in as open
and transparent of a way as possible, and folks will be very much able to
comment on all matters of this.
We can also *change* the particular processes for the logistics here as we
go along and make sure they are functioning effectively.
I'll also try to give at least my perspective on some of the points you
> , yet does not provide any indication of:
> - Who these people are.
I think that this will of course be part of actually establishing the
> - How the LLVM community will select them (I presume that they are not
> intended to be externally imposed, as to have any moral authority over the
> community they would have to be supported by the community).
I don't think that their job will be to impose moral authority, I think the
code of conduct is the basis they would be required to cite for any
decision. Their role should be much more focused on understanding what has
happened, and ensuring it is responded to. I also think that is called out
in the document.
This is not to say that the individuals would not need to be trusted by the
community -- they absolutely would need the trust of folks to work very
hard to make reasonable decisions here.
> - How often they will change, what the term limits are, and so on.
> - What their oversight mechanism is (it appears that the only appeal to
> rulings of the committee is to the committee itself, which seems rife for
The appeal is to the board of the Foundation. I don't expect the board to
*be* the committee here, quite the opposite.
> The LLVM Foundation itself has existed now for over a year and has largely
> failed to engage with the community. This is clearly not a good model for
> an committee that is intended to oversee (and enforce!) the behaviour of a
I'm surprised and saddened to hear you say this. I also don't particularly
agree. I have interacted with almost every member of the foundation board
as a regular course of interacting with the community. The foundation is
completely handling the planning and running of the developer's meeting.
Certainly, we're still in the infancy of figuring this stuff out, but I
don't see a problematic lack of engagement.
If there is little need for the board to engage with the community
actively, that is because this community is (IMO) very healthy and has few
needs in that regard. I actually expect the code of conduct to work much
the same. I think the community *already* behaves excellently, and look at
this as a way to ensure that going forward and advertise that to potential
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev