[llvm-dev] RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct
Philip Reames via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Oct 14 13:41:55 PDT 2015
On 10/14/2015 01:02 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote:
> On 14 October 2015 at 20:35, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> Related specifically to the developers meeting, we are growing quite
>> rapidly. For the past few years, we have been increasing our attendance from
>> 50 at the start to now over 350 attendees. With this many people (and many
>> new to the community), it seems important to have a code of conduct to refer
>> to and possibly *prevent* any incidents from happening. And for some people
>> (not sure exact percentage), it makes them feel more comfortable attending a
>> conference that has a code of conduct.
> Just an honest and simple question: would it make sense to have a
> different code of conduct for meetings and the rest?
> I know it sounds like a bad idea, but my rationale is that maybe this
> would at least solve some of the points that socially inept people
> feel pressure on the current proposal.
> Because the consequences of a physical meeting can be a lot tougher
> than any electronic one, and because timing is of the essence, the
> wording *has* to be stronger and an executive decision has to be
> But such strong wording and harsh unappealable consequences do make
> us, of the anti-social variety, very frightened. We grew in a world
> that never made sense, and we have suffered our childhoods and
> adulthoods in constant fear of irrational (to our minds) reprimands.
> This is not a simple matter, it's quite real and have made me
> seriously consider many times leaving the open source realm for good.
> I have left jobs and regressed in my career because of things like
> From the very wording in the proposed CoC, we don't want to leave
> anyone behind, including physical and mental disabilities. If that's
> true, and we really mean it, than imposing such a harsh CoC from the
> majority of opinions is exactly the opposite of that. People like me
> are clearly not the majority, the NAS UK estimates 1 every 100 people
> in England has some form of autism, but that's the whole point of a
> CoC, is to not forget about the people with some form of fragility.
Renato, if I'm reading you right, you're main concern here is the
reporting policy and consequences thereof right? I'm trying to separate
possible concerns about the CoC itself from how the community decides to
enforce it. Do you feel that Chandler's proposed CoC introduces any new
expectations? I see it as a rephrasing as what we already expect and
have abided by in the past.
Are there any specific and concrete changes you'd like to see to either
the CoC or reporting policy? You mentioned splitting the in person and
virtual interaction cases above. I personally think that's a bad idea
for the official policy, but it's exactly the type of concrete proposal
we can consider and discuss. If you have any other ideas, please throw
I want to explicitly state that I believe Renato is raising a real and
concerning point. There are many people for whom implicit social
contracts are problematic. I see one of the main advantages of the CoC
proposal being that these implicit rules stop being implicit. We may
need to be a bit more explicit in some cases, but having a CoC would
seem strictly better than not having it.
> By the replies I've seen so far, there were others that feel the same
> way, and I wonder if they're also feeling a little uncomfortable with
> the wording.
> Disclaimer: This is not personal nor an accusation, I know you
> wouldn't do anything to upset anyone. I'm just trying to solve a
> problem that I can see people have, but can't express without looking
> rude. I'm *really* sorry, but we just sound rude, we're not really,
> and I do appreciate when people remind me if I slip up.
> Just my two cents.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
More information about the llvm-dev