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

Philip Reames via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Oct 13 18:17:45 PDT 2015

On 10/13/2015 03:55 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:45 PM Philip Reames 
> <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote:
>     2) Several folks have mentioned that they'd like to see this less
>     verbose.  I disagree, but I do think that it sometimes comes
>     across as focusing too much on the details.  It might be good to
>     summarize the general principals, and then list for the more
>     legalistic bits as notes or footnotes.  Make it clear that a list
>     isn't the *point*, but it does help to clarify.
> I feel like the first two paragraphs tried to do exactly this. Is 
> there same specific part that didn't work for you?
I was more going for the details section.  Taking the "Be Welcoming" 
section as an example.  Suggested formatting:
- *Be welcoming.* We strive to be a community that welcomes and supports 
people of all backgrounds and identities.

    This includes, but is not limited to members of any race, ethnicity,
    culture, national origin, colour, immigration status, social and
    economic class, educational level, sex, sexual orientation, gender
    identity and expression, age, size, family status, political belief,
    religion, and mental and physical ability.

(i.e. indent the last sentence to separate key point from details.)

To be clear, this is a *really* minor point.  Think nitpick in code 
review, not a design objection.

>     3) I really liked the suggestion down thread of reframing
>     "reporting" as "asking for moderation".  I think it needs to be
>     clear that there can be consequences, but focusing on resolving
>     the situation at hand seems like a better starting point for most
>     discussions.
> There is a very important problem with calling this moderation. That 
> implies that the event has to *continue* and also implies some levels 
> of necessary on-going interaction. For a broad range of the ways that 
> these things can go wrong, it is really important that the person who 
> has become uncomfortable be able to leave the situation and feel safe. 
> Moderation and mediation don't provide that kind of safety for some, 
> and I think we need to design this to be supportive of the most 
> challenging cases.
This is a completely reasonable point and definitely worth considering.

Part of what I'm aiming for is to avoid having a report be automatically 
a "big deal".  I want people to be able to speak up when they're at all 
uncomfortable without feeling like the only mechanism available 
automatically has major consequences and should be used only as a last 
resort.  Other ways to do this, I'm entirely open to.
> Of course, when moderation or mediation are the appropriate 
> *responses* to a report, I would hope they are used. Perhaps it would 
> be helpful to add them to the list? I'm imagining an added bullet 
> point to the "Responses may include" section along the lines of:
> * Providing either moderation or mediation to ongoing interactions 
> (where appropriate and safe).
Seems reasonable.  Minor word smithing suggestion:
* Providing either moderation or mediation to ongoing interactions 
(where appropriate, safe, and desired by both parties).

(This part would be fine as either a phabricator review comment or a 
post commit suggestion for improvement.)
> Thoughts?
> -Chandler

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/ce06bbca/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list