[llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct
Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri May 6 13:16:00 PDT 2016
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:04 PM Jon Roelofs via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Friday, May 6, 2016, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 6 May 2016 at 19:34, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > This isn't just about what we can do today, but about explaining it to
>> > people who haven't seen us do it/don't know what the community norms
>> are. So
>> > that when evaluating which communities they might want to be involved
>> > they have some confidence that this one might be compatible with their
>> > comfort/needs/etc.
>> The CoC can do that on its own. We were talking specifically about the
>> "external media" clause.
> I don't know if this has already been answered in the current thread or
> the previous discussion of an llvm CoC, but: What is the intended
> resolution of an issue like: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 where,
> IIUC, someone from the community makes politically incorrect/unpopular statements
> outside of the community on so-called "external media" (without attacking
> or harassing anyone in particular), but keeps his/her direct interactions
> with the community on topic, engineering related, and non-discriminatory?
I can't speak for how a future committee would look at this, but I can
certainly tell you what I would personally look for and I would have
serious concerns if the response differed significantly:
Until there is some particular reason to believe that the communication
elsewhere is having a serious negative effect on members of the community
and their ability to effectively participate in the community, its none of
our business. But if there are serious negative effects, then trying to
find some way to deal with those seems reasonable. I suspect what that
looks like will depend almost entirely on the circumstances that arise.
As a hypothetical, if someone widely promotes positions that are
sufficiently hostile and unwelcoming to contributors that their mere
presence has a stifling effect and makes those contributors feel incapable
of interacting with the community, no matter how separate the external
behavior is kept or how much we do to try to keep things separate, I would
personally hope the committee would step in because I think that would have
a really negative effect on members of the community.
But it is also nearly impossible to predict what kinds of behavior would or
wouldn't have negative effects (especially these kinds of effects) in the
abstract or based on what happens in a different community with different
people. So I don't really know where the issue you cite falls. I can
imagine context where it could go either way, and I would hope that the
committee pays a *lot* of attention to that kind of context.
Anyways, my perspective on how this would work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev