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

Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Oct 13 16:37:42 PDT 2015

Joachim, I think we pretty strongly disagree here.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:39 PM Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Am 13.10.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev:
> >
> > This is a *specific* thing that is called out time and again as important
> > to having an effective code of conduct in all of the research I have done
> > on the subject. Here is a really good, and fairly canonical source:
> >
> >
> http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/
> That's an activist site. Also, instructions how to construct a CoC
> according to these activist's ideas.

I don't entirely agree (they enumerate on their site all of the things they
work on). But they certainly are advocating strongly, for example:
"we encourage you to continue supporting women in open technology and
culture by continuing and building on the Ada Initiative’s work"

I agree with this goal, and I am suggesting that the LLVM community has
long operated in a way that strives towards it, and we can do so even
better through a formal code of conduct.

I think that this makes them an excellent resource on how to most
effectively pursue this goal (and related goals).

It's not research. Not on the actual effects of having a CoC.

Reading these and other resources is the research I did. I'm not claiming
it is statistically significant or contains unassailable data. I do think
it offers useful and relevant guidance for the community.

Am 13.10.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev:
> > Now, I understand that for many of you (in fact, I suspect for the
> > overwhelming majority of you!) these details aren't necessary. As I have
> > said before, the LLVM community has been very effectively keeping its
> > forums civil and polite for a long time. But I think we should consider
> > that having a code of conduct and having it be detailed might be
> important
> > for *others*.
> Yes it might.
> What are the numbers?

One is one too many. The number is more than one.

> People who have serious concerns about participating safely in a community
> > should have some way to be reassured about what is expected within our
> > community. A detailed and documented code of conduct is the best way I
> know
> > of to advertise that this is a safe and welcoming space. This isn't just
> a
> > hypothetical either. I personally struggled to feel safe within the LLVM
> > community many years ago, and I have had many people specifically call
> out
> > how excited they are to see even a *chance* that the LLVM community will
> > explicitly take a stance here.
> How many?

More than one. The numbers don't matter. This is the right thing to do.

> Another (smaller) benefit that a detailed code of conduct can provide is a
> > reminder. While I try to behave to the best of my abilities, sometimes I
> > have needed a reminder to cool down a bit. I suspect others have had
> > similar experiences. Having some details can help us consider things that
> > we might not usually consider on a day-to-day basis.
> Yes, but again I think it's too detailed.

We disagree. Restating your position won't really move this discussion
forward. Thank you for stating your position, but I think the community can
and should move forward.

Actually I'm not yet convinced that LLVM really needs a CoC.

Many, many people within the community are, and so it does not seem useful
to debate this.

Also, being welcoming isn't necessary high on the priority list.

Being welcoming *is* high on our priority list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/00aeb7b0/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list