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

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

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
> *be* the committee here, quite the opposite.

This doesn't solve the problem. If the foundation appoints the
committee, appeals to the foundation are still open for abuse.

Only democratic and transparent processes can work in this fashion,
and I don't see the foundation as being either.


> 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.

So why the need to list the punishments and make sure that only
capital punishments can actually be appealed?


> 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.

Apart from the great work Tanya is doing with the LLVM meetings, I
don't absolutely anything coming from the foundation. Can you
elaborate?

All in all, she was already doing great work before, so I take this
more as her personal merit than anything else.

Since we're delving into this topic...

I expected the foundation to own and improve the validation
infrastructure, and the web presence. So far I only saw Apple building
the great GreenBot, but when I wanted to help, it seemed this would be
something between me and on Apple employee.

I also saw the migration to a new server (thanks again Tanya), but
that's very far from providing a stable infrastructure. If Tanya is
the only one doing things, of course she won't be able to do what we
*need* in any reasonable time.

I expected the foundation sponsors to put in hardware and money to buy
servers, Amazon cloud instances, co-host testing devices with
universities in a way to foster inclusion and promote the project,
etc. Things that are obvious to me, but it seems got lost in the
foundation...

I also don't see any transparency, not representation. We got a memo
that it came into existence, than nothing else. I can't find any
document about the foundation except that blog post. As a non-profit,
I'd expect to be public memos, checks and balances, monthly reports,
etc.

I don't want to have those documents on my disk, I want them public,
indexed by search engines, as soon as they're published.

I can't see how the foundation represents my work in LLVM if they
essentially don't exist publicly, especially because there's no way I
can influence. Representation is given, not taken.

cheers,
--renato