[llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct
Lang Hames via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri May 6 13:30:38 PDT 2016
Hi Chandler, Renato,
> For what it's worth it's definitely the line that caused me the most
> > concern. In the least charitable reading it could be seen as applying
> > community standards" to contributors' private lives, which would be a big
> > departure from our current culture.
> Indeed, a very good point. The biggest argument is that the code is
> not trying to change our culture and that definitely goes against it.
Yep. I'm applying modus tollens here: This (uncharitable) interpretation
would imply a departure from existing standards. The CoC explicitly states
that it does not intend to depart from existing standards. Therefore, this
interpretation is not the intended one.
"In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare
> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them."
I like the clear implication that the bar is different for outside spaces -
I am mildly in favor of this. I'm ok with the existing wording too though,
because I think you're right that the community has the maturity needed to
navigate these issues if they come up. I also think the reporting process
that the proposed CoC puts in place would be a great circuit breaker to
prevent things going downhill as they did in
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
> On 6 May 2016 at 20:56, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That said, I wonder what folks think about strengthening the
> > "de-intensifying" language? As a small change that might help:
> > "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare
> > cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them."
> I prefer this change.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev