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

[Lang Hames via llvm-dev]

Hi All,

Chandler and the community - thank you very much for working on this. I'm
in favour of seeing something like this adopted.

> I totally agree.  I see a CoC as formalizing existing practice, not
establishing new practice.

It may ease some concerns if the opening lines of the CoC made this
explicit, but I haven't been able to think up any good language for that.
In the long run I don't think it will matter: if/when the CoC is adopted it
will quickly become "part of the furniture".

Reflecting on the grand social project to make our spaces safer: We should
acknowledge, and I think the proposed CoC does this well, that it's
impossible to create a space free of offense. Nobody would want to inhabit
such a space anyway. The goal is to prevent unreasonable behavior/offense,
and to dispense reasonable offense professionally and equitably. ;)

- Lang.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 5:37 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I completely agree.
>
> FWIW, I see the board’s role here as 1) identifying the need for a CoC,
> and 2) starting a discussion about it.  It is not the board’s job to
> dictate some specific thing without approval of the community.  The
> proposal Chandler sent out was intended as an *RFC*  (see the subject of
> the message) not a "dictate from the board”.  The discussion is intended to
> take place in public, and feedback and input is greatly welcomed.
>
> If anything, the formal role of the board is to replace me in various
> capacities as “head code owner”.  We need some entity to break ties and
> settle debates (both technical and policy) and it is unreasonable for LLVM
> in the long term for that responsibility to rest solely on my shoulders.
> The LLVM Foundation is intended to distribute that responsibility to
> multiple different people with multiple different perspectives,
> backgrounds, and personal biases, to make sure we get the right thing for
> the community at large.
>
> The great thing about this is that this is completely forward looking, and
> *not* driven by any specific crisis.  We want LLVM to be proactive and
> built for the long term, not a reactive community that tries to duct-tape
> problems as they come up.  So far, the board has not had to settle any
> disputes, and while we had one situation where a CoC would have been
> useful, it was both a long time ago (~2006) and was handling with
> professionalism at that time.  That said, times change and the LLVM
> community has grown a lot, we want to be prepared for the next 10 years. :-)
>
> > 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.
>
> I totally agree.  I see a CoC as formalizing existing practice, not
> establishing new practice.  If anything, it is a bit disheartening to see
> some folks' reactions on this thread, because they border into the
> unprofessional behavior that we’d like to avoid.  Here is one way to look
> at it: passionate technical discussions are great.  Vitriol, ad-hominem
> attacks, and implied ill-will is not.
>
> Further, while this seems like a simple task, there is an art to codifying
> this existing practice in the right way.  This obviously requires community
> effort, and I want to thank Chandler again for taking on the thankless task
> of driving the discussion!
>
> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/2820d0ef/attachment.html>