[llvm-dev] RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Oct 13 16:38:52 PDT 2015
Given that there's a degree of echo chamber that the LLVM community/mailing
list can have sometimes (only a few people speaking up, but many others
with similar or divergent opinions - leading to incorrect assumptions about
those unexpressed perspectives) I just wanted to include some agreement
here, especially for James's comments as they echo my own pretty well.
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).
Especially this ^ (consistency is probably valuable enough to justify
avoiding too much wordsmithing/nitpicking, but if there are fundamental
problems with the document, that's worth discussing)
> 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.
and this ^ (it doesn't matter if it's the most important thing, it's a
thing with value & people willing to do it - this is how much of LLVM
development gets done, I don't see a difference here)
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev