[llvm-dev] [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct
Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Sun Jul 3 16:42:43 PDT 2016
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org]
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 2:52 PM
> To: Daniel Berlin
> Cc: Robinson, Paul; llvm-dev; LLDB; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; openmp-dev
> (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org); Rafael Espíndola
> Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial
> draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct
> On 1 July 2016 at 18:32, Daniel Berlin via lldb-dev
> <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> The single word "rare" in the current code doesn't feel like enough.
> > I don't actually disagree with your criticism, IMHO, i just don't know
> of a
> > way to generate more clarity.
> Paul, Rafael, Daniel,
> With the intention of being pragmatic and getting the draft out
> (remember, it's *still* a draft), would having Daniel's new proposal
> more comfortable?
> "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in
> rare cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when
> the conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the community's
> social standard."
Daniel claimed it was not different, even though he proposed the text.
I think it is better, as "egregious" (even though it is qualitative)
helps identify what "rare" circumstances would come under the policy.
As a non-lawyer I do think it's different.
Yes I would be happier with that added, although it might not be enough
for everyone who is unhappy with the code as-is.
> If so, than I'd hope we could get this through and start discussing
> the second part, the reporting and committee formation, which I think
> it's much more important than the code itself.
More information about the llvm-dev