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

Renato Golin via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri May 6 16:25:38 PDT 2016

On 6 May 2016 at 23:31, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org> wrote:
> I am not going to argue with you anymore.

I hope this isn't how we'll deal with CoC violations.

> Please stop twisting my words.

I'm certainly not twisting your words. I'm sorry you feel that way.

I explicitly said I was confused, and I asked questions to understand
what the point was.

This proves my point that you see in my words intentions that didn't
exist. In the same way you saw Joachim making a joke that I don't
think he made.

I also don't think he was advocating that some harassment could be let
go, only that there are different ways to deal with it. I think this
is a perfectly valid point of view.

All in all some genuine concerns from people that are being at best
misinterpreted, and the reason why we have a judiciary system in the
first place. The legislative system alone cannot account for
everything that happens on paper, and it's up to the interpretation of
trained individuals, as well as random members of the public to make
sure the process is open and fair.

We may need some discretion on our side, to avoid even more
harassment, but any public decision (ex. bans) will end up public
anyway, and for any of those that will happen we'll need a pretty
solid case, or the image we're trying to save will only be destroyed.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list