[lldb-dev] [Openmp-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

[Robinson, Paul via lldb-dev]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr D. Chisnall [mailto:dc552 at hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of David
> Chisnall
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 1:48 AM
> To: Renato Golin
> Cc: Robinson, Paul; Daniel Berlin; llvm-dev; openmp-dev (openmp-
> dev at lists.llvm.org); LLDB; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; Rafael Espíndola
> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the
> initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct
> 
> On 4 Jul 2016, at 12:27, Renato Golin via Openmp-dev <openmp-
> dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 4 July 2016 at 00:42, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > I personally agree with you, both on helping identify "rare" (as what,
> > not when), and for easing non-lawyers minds.
> 
> The simplest solution would probably be to have a separate advisory
> document listing informally examples of things that would and wouldn’t be
> covered by the CoC.  For example:

As Daniel pointed out, an enumeration like that knows no bounds, and
starting a list invites endless what-if questions.  That's why I settled
for a more qualitative statement; we have to acknowledge that ultimately
there's a judgement call on the part of the enforcement committee, but
the wording as it was felt a little too wide-open for me.
--paulr

> 
> Stalking a member of the LLVM community: Covered.
> 
> Inciting harassment of a member of the LLVM community in social media:
> Covered
> 
> Sending rude emails to a member of the LLVM community with whom you have a
> relationship outside of the project: Probably not covered, unless it’s
> directly related to LLVM
> 
> Some example that people are worried would constitute overreach: Not
> covered
> 
> Some other examples that people are concerned must be covered: Covered
> 
> This document would provide guidance for the CoC enforcement committee,
> but would not be part of the official CoC.
> 
> David