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

[Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:32 PM Nathan Wilson <nwilson20 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>

As I just said, I'm not aware of any *specific* events that were the
motivation. We have certainly had arguments get off the rails in the past,
and have had to correct them, but I don't think there is any specific ones
that were motivating this discussion.

The motivations I am aware of I wrote in my reply to Hal.


>
>
>>
>> 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.
>

Consider? Absolutely. In the draft I'm keeping, I have already applied
several excellent suggestions from this thread. I expect there will be more.

I will send out a fresh draft tomorrow (maybe tonight?) with a summary of
the changes and the overarching comments. This will be a new thread, etc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151014/1a0c46cf/attachment.html>