[llvm-dev] RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct
Nathan Wilson via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Oct 13 17:32:29 PDT 2015
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:23 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>> > From: "Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> > Some back story here. I have gotten many requests through email and
>> > at the developer meetings about having a Code of Conduct and
>> > specifically having one for LLVM Developer Meetings. It has been
>> > discussed at many of the LLVM socials as well. I can see in
>> > hindsight this might appear to be coming out of nowhere for some,
>> > but it really is coming from a need we (the board) heard from the
>> > community.
>> This is very useful information. Can you summarize the motivations of
>> those making the requests (anonymized, of course)? It seems odd that
>> someone would ask about a 'Code of Conduct' without some particular
>> impetus, and we obviously want to make sure that we're addressing the
>> specific requirements that have come up. What information was being sought?
> In fact, I'm not aware of these requests being tied to any particular
> impetus. While that seems strange to you, it is not uncommon.
I was also wondering about this. For example, was the motivation that there
have been some ad hominem attacks rather than technical discussion?
> The industry at large has hit a large number of specific issues over the
> past few years that have provide (IMO) ample motivation for setting
> reasonable guidelines in place *before* there is a specific impetus. I
> don't think there is any reason to be surprised that several people within
> the community would notice the lack of a code of conduct and wish it
> existed. I had noted the lack, and I very much wished it existed, but
> without any specific impetus.
> Now, a reasonable question is "does this address the concerns of those who
> have voiced them". I don't want to speak for Tanya, but I have heard
> confirmation from all of those that I have heard express such a concern
> that what is being proposed addresses their concerns. (Not to say that it
> is perfect, just that it appears to be sufficient.)
You mentioned suggestions or improvements; would you, or the Foundation,
consider modifying the CoC? I ask because it seems there seems to be some
contention among the community about the phrasing of various sections.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev