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

Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Oct 13 11:30:37 PDT 2015

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:16 AM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>

> 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?

For some of the reasons we at least need to make it clear the scope:

> > 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?

We are actively working on infrastructure issues (note the move to new
mailing list servers?) and issues around licensing (the discussions we have
had before about CLA).

But *none* of this belongs in this thread.

I'm very happy to have a discussion of how the foundation can (and IMO
should!) be more transparent and effective. I would also love to see other
discussions about the foundation. We even have a BoF dedicated to such
discussions at the developer's meeting.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/98c16b21/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list