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

Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Oct 13 16:25:42 PDT 2015

First, +1 for a code of conduct along these lines. The LLVM community has
always tried to uphold the ideals expressed by the standard, so we might as
well make it a statement.

I also want to echo what James said about the value of a standard CoC. The
burden for making edits should be really high. I don't see how we are
likely to substantially improve on this document by attempting to copy edit
it by committee.

That said, please continue to provide general feedback! If multiple people
have the same issue with the CoC, that's something we need to know.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:08 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> +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.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/69aed38a/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list