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

[James Y Knight via llvm-dev]

+1 to using basically verbatim the existing Django Code of Conduct. The
Django CoC expresses the desired sentiment well, and does a Good Enough job
on the details. It also seems well respected in general.

I'd suggest that we all resist the urge to disuss basically irrelevant
minutae (such as the exact list of things that are written in the "includes,
but is not limited to" list), adopt it, and move on to more fun activities.
I'd like to repost what someone said on a thread about adopting a Code of
Conduct in Twisted, because it does a better job of saying this than I can.
Clayton Daley wrote:

> Not that I'm a heavy contributor, but:
>    - A CoC is like a ToS in many ways.  They rarely get read until there's
> a problem.
>    - A CoC is like a License in many ways.  They should be pretty standard
> infrastructure.
>


I think both of these facts argue for joining Twisted to an existing CoC.
> No one goes around reading the CoC for every group they participate in. We
> increase the odds that someone reads our CoC if they get leverage (one
> read, lots of groups) and we get spill-over (they read the CoC for another
> group and thus know ours).


To those saying it's too long: I think it looks a lot longer as a wall of
ReStructured Text in email, than when read formatted. Reading it here
https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/ it seems a reasonable length, with a
nicely bolded TL;DR list for those who don't want to sweat the details.

One other thing: I don't think it'll be terribly useful to debate about
whether this is the MOST IMPORTANT thing for the community to do. There
certainly are other issues facing the community e.g. around making it easy
for newcomers to get patches reviewed/submitted. Maybe lack of CoC isn't
the largest problem facing to contributors, but IMO it's definitely a
positive step. And, one that isn't terribly difficult to accomplish: it's
mostly just writing down expectations for professional behavior that
basically everyone follows already.

The only bit that seems to me really needs fleshing out is what the process
for appointing the CoC committee is. I'd sort of assume based on what other
organizations do that the LLVM Foundation Board would be responsible for
appointing the Committee, but that the Board and the Committe would not be
one and the same.

Of course, the LLVM Foundation Board *really* must be a transparent,
trusted, and respected group in the community in order to be able to
properly take on that role. Based on the board members (at least, from the
2014 announcement), it seems to me that there should be no intrinsic
problem there...but getting the "trivial" things done like posting the
bylaws and meeting notes on the website is really quite important to
engender such trust.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/563ed5c6/attachment.html>