[PATCH] D61550: Add recommendations on how to start a meetup in your city

[Alex Denisov via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

AlexDenisov marked 2 inline comments as done.
AlexDenisov added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/MeetupGuidelines.rst:14
+  tailored towards offline events
+  (`example <https://berlincodeofconduct.org>`_).
+* Although not mandatory, your group could be using the https://meetup.com
----------------
mehdi_amini wrote:
> AlexDenisov wrote:
> > mehdi_amini wrote:
> > > This is tricky, if you organize an LLVM Social and intend to advertise it on the LLVM mailing list, the LLVM CoC should always apply*, it'd be strange to have a CoC for the social which is less specific than the LLVM one for instance.
> > > 
> > > *: the CoC mentions that it applies to "LLVM events such as the developer meetings and socials".
> > > 
> > Hm, I certainly missed that. In Berlin, we are not using LLVM's CoC. I think the reason was that it did not exist when we started (I just checked, and indeed the meetup group was created two weeks after the first draft has landed).
> > I can remove the line about "any other CoC" if there is a strict requirement for the socials to follow LLVM's CoC.
> > 
> > If that's the case, then we'll need to reconsider code of conduct we are following at Berlin socials, but honestly, I don't think it's worth the effort, especially given that Berlin CoC does not contradict LLVM's CoC.
> I would at least check with the LLVM Foundation what is the appropriate language to use.
> 
> It is possible that this would work for everyone: "The LLVM `CoC <https://llvm.org/docs/CodeOfConduct.html>`_ applies to such social events in general, if you'd like to pick another one (`example <https://berlincodeofconduct.org>`_) please check with the LLVM Foundation if it is compatible with the LLVM one."
Agreed, I like how you put it!
I will use your wording unless we get other suggestions.

@tonic, @aadg what do you think?


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/MeetupGuidelines.rst:48
+
+* It’s a great idea to have several talks scheduled for several upcoming
+  meetups to get the ball rolling.
----------------
kristof.beyls wrote:
> hintonda wrote:
> > This seems to assume meetups should be semi formal affairs with speakers -- was that your intent?
> > 
> > I've only been to a dozen or so socials in Mountain View, and none of them had speakers -- they're just socials.  People tend to congregate in small groups and have informal discussions.  I like this format because it give me a chance to discuss ad-hoc topics, e.g, features I'd like to add or things I'm having difficulty with or don't fully understand.
> I think that it might be better to structure this document roughly as "Please adapt your social/meetups to what will work best for your specific situation; here are a number of ideas you can take into account when designing your specific social."
> 
> Having a talk or a roadmap of talks may work well for some socials and less well for other socials. My guess is that the Mountain View social is unique in that it has a much higher chance of an expert being present for most areas of LLVM; something that is probably less likely at socials elsewhere. Which has an impact on what the "optimal" design for the social is.
> 
> I think one of the most important points is to encourage adapting and if necessary experimenting with the format to what works locally.
> This seems to assume meetups should be semi formal affairs with speakers -- was that your intent?

Not really, thank you for the good catch.
This document is just a summary of what has been discussed two times at EuroLLVM. I think I simply biased by the fact that almost all meetups in Europe are like you said: semi formal affairs with speakers.

@kristof.beyls made a good point, I will put his suggestion onto the very top of the document.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D61550/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D61550