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

Hal Finkel via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Oct 13 17:37:27 PDT 2015

----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Y Knight via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at llvm.org>
> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 6:08:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct
> 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.

I'd like to second this; transparency is very important here. That's properly the subject of a different thread.

However, I'd also like to highlight David's comments here:

> Note that we can do this in FreeBSD, because we have an elected Core
> Team.  The FreeBSD Foundation has spent the last 15 or so years
> finding its current role (and has offered the LLVM Foundation the
> benefit of this experience).  Unlike the Foundation, which is an
> independent entity from the project (though one that consults with
> Core on a regular basis and provides valuable services to the
> project), Core is 100% accountable to the FreeBSD project.  Every
> two years, anyone active committer (defined as someone who has
> committed something to a FreeBSD repository in the last year) is
> entitled to vote for the new Core Team (and, of course, to stand for
> election).

and say that this seems like a good model for the CoC committee process. Specifically, something that is community driven. As Chris said,

> [...] what the LLVM Foundation is
> about.  It isn’t about making technical decisions (we have code
> owners for that).  It is designed to handle administration of the
> project and infrastructure, including planning and rolling out of
> the devmtgs.

and this is clearly an important function. One thing that defines LLVMs code ownership role is that it is not particularly hierarchical in authority. A code owner is quite-accurately described as a "first among equals", and maintaining that flavor in the structure of the community is important. The LLVM foundation, as an entity tasked with financial obligations, can have an independent process for determining its leadership, and that's not inappropriate.

Finally, I'd like to say that one of the most attractive things about this community is how professional it is. The people are respectful, polite, patient and helpful. What I'm hearing is that experience from other communities suggests that having a CoC will help ensure these qualities continue to define LLVM's community, and therefore, I'm in favor.

Thanks again,

> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list