[llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct

Chris Lattner via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu May 5 21:41:11 PDT 2016

> On May 5, 2016, at 6:53 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> writes:
> > I want to be super clear, the foundation is not insisting on anything, nor
> > can it.
> >
> > **I** am making this proposal as an active and long time contributor to
> > LLVM. Many other members of the community have also expressed support for
> > this on this and previous threads. But our support is given as individual
> > members of the community and it should be valued as such.
> Just to add a little bit to this, it's very much a mischaracterization
> of the situation to imply that the code of conduct idea is some sort of
> demand coming from the foundation.
> I can see how one would interpret Chris' statement:
> """
> Renato, I’m confused about your approach here.  At this point, you seem persistently interested in discussing whether having a code of conduct is the right thing or not.  This is missing the point: we’re committed to it, and want to make sure that we get reasonable processes and policies in place.
> If we find out that they are problematic in practice, we can and will course correct.
> """
> as "some sort of demand coming from the foundation". In context, my reading of "we're committed to it" is precisely "demand coming from the foundation".
> Maybe a clarification is needed?

Here’s your clarification:  we == Chandler & I.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160505/cded8fc2/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list