[PATCH] D122937: Provide the complete response and reporting Code of Conduct documentation. Remove the word draft from all documents, add information about the CoC committee expectations and add a place for transparency reports.

Tue Apr 5 08:45:16 PDT 2022

aaron.ballman added a comment.

Thank you for working on this, I'm really glad to see the CoC coming out of DRAFT status and being finalized! I think these documents are going in a great direction, just found some minor points/questions.

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/CodeOfConduct.rst:98
+
+If you believe someone is violating the code of conduct you can always report it to the LLVM Foundation Code of Conduct Committee by emailing conduct at llvm.org. All reports will be kept confidential. This isn’t a public list and only members of the advisory committee will receive the report. For details on what to include in the report, please see our :doc:`Reporting Guide <ReportingGuide>`.
+
----------------
Please wrap to the usual 80-col limits and convert smart quotes like `’` into dumb quotes `'` (here and elsewhere in your changes).

Do we want to make `conduct at llvm.org` into links in this document so people can just click it if needed? (I don't believe that will add any additional spam burden on the account -- listing the address is sufficient to trigger spam.)

please see our Reporting Guide -> please see the Reporting Guide

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/CodeOfConduct.rst:114
+
+`The LLVM Foundation Board of Directors`_
+
----------------
Rather than having people go to a second source, it would be nice to list the members here directly. It's a bit of an extra maintenance burden, but who a CoC report is seen by is crucial information when filing a report, so it seems more user-friendly to not hide that behind another link.

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/CodeOfConduct.rst:119
+
+Transparency reports will be published here as they become available.
+
----------------
Do we want to add any extra information about what's expected to be in the transparency report (or more importantly, what's expected to NOT make it into a transparency report) as not all readers may be familiar with this?

I see later that we do have some information on what's in the transparency reports elsewhere, so maybe we want to link to there from here?

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/ReportingGuide.rst:9

-The advisory committee will immediately meet to review the incident and try to
-determine:
+Reporting and contact information
+=================================
----------------
Similar changes are needed for other section titles (so long as it's consistent within the document, what style you go with doesn't matter much to me).

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/ReportingGuide.rst:12

-* What happened and who was involved.
-* Whether this event constitutes a code of conduct violation.
-* Whether this is an ongoing situation, or if there is a threat to anyone's
-  physical safety.
+* For any incident involving an online platform (ie. mailing lists, forums, irc/discord/slack, etc) we ask that you make any reports by emailing conduct at llvm.org. This is received by all members of the CoC Committee.

----------------
Same question here about whether we want to make a link for the email address.

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/ReportingGuide.rst:14

-If this is determined to be an ongoing incident or a threat to physical safety,
-the working groups' immediate priority will be to protect everyone involved.
-This means we may delay an "official" response until we believe that the
-situation has ended and that everyone is physically safe.
+* For a LLVM Developers’ Meeting has a Code of Conduct team. For each conference, their names and contact details are listed on the event webpage. You can also approach any other staff member, who can be identified by special badges and often found at the registration desk. All incidents reported in person at a  LLVM Developers’ Meeting will be emailed to the Code of Conduct Committee. 

----------------
How does this change confidentiality of the report? e.g., should the reporter assume that in addition to the CoC team, all staff members have access to the report, or only the staff member contacted, something else?

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/ReportingGuide.rst:16

-The working group will try to contact other parties involved or witnessing the
-event to gain clarity on what happened and understand any different
-perspectives.
+* For meetups, please report the incident to the local meetup organizers first. Each meetup will have a contact listed on the associated meetup page. If you feel uncomfortable with this or if you feel the incident was not well handled by the local organizers, please email conduct at llvm.org. All meetup organizers who receive an in person report are asked to email conduct at llvm.org with the incident information.

----------------
I think this policy is reasonable, but it does leave some daylight for reports to be accidentally dropped if the meetup organizer doesn't pass the information along to the conduct team.

Would it make sense to modify this slightly to report the incident to the local meetup organizer AND CoC team at the same time, with the understanding that the local organizer should take immediate action and report back to the CoC team. This way, the CoC team is still alerted to the potential issue and it helps mitigate the risk that an event organizer doesn't report up (either accidentally or otherwise).

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/ReportingGuide.rst:26

-After any incident, the advisory committee will make a report on the situation
-to the LLVM Foundation board. The board may choose to make a public statement
-about the incident. If that's the case, the identities of anyone involved will
-remain confidential unless instructed by those individuals otherwise.
-
-Appealing
-=========
+* Your contact info (so we can get in touch with you). Include email and optionally a phone number.
+* Names or descriptions of anyone who was involved or who witnessed the incident.
----------------
Should we add a bullet point discussing anonymous reporting?

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/ReportingGuide.rst:35

-Only permanent resolutions (such as bans) or requests for public actions may be
-appealed. To appeal a decision of the working group, contact the LLVM
-Foundation board at board at llvm.org with your appeal and the board will review
-the case.
+If you don’t provide all of this information at the time, please still make the report and include as much information as you have.

----------------

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst:19
+* For LLVM meetups, the local organizers will be the first point of contact.
+* Any other event funded by the LLVM Foundation or listed on the LLVM website, will have a code of conduct response team or point of contact for CoC reports.
+
----------------
It's not entirely clear that "listed on the LLVM website" is quite accurate. For example, we have working group meetings listed on the website, as well as community office hours, and neither of those will have a CoC response team. We may want to reword it slightly to say that there MAY be a code of conduct response team, but if there's not one specific to the event, file the concerns the usual way.

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst:40
+
+The CoC committee generally works, decides and communicates together. If the report indicates that an immediate response is required and other committee members are not available, any committee member may take the immediate action they think is necessary. In-person Code of Conduct response teams should use this checklist to determine if an immediate response is needed.
+
----------------
I <3 Oxford commas, no idea if others love them as much as I do.

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst:59
+6. The :ref:`resolution<Resolutions>` is implemented.
+7. All reports, data, notes, and resolutions are logged in a private location (ie. Google Drive or other database).
+
----------------
Do we have a retention policy we want to mention for how long we keep all this data? (I read this as "we retain it forever".)

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst:107
+
+The reportee will be given 3 days to respond with the option to request additional time if needed and subject to approval of the CoC Committee.
+
----------------
mehdi_amini wrote:
> hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > Should this be business days with consideration for the locality, etc. of the reportee?
> I find "business days" to be quite un-inclusive actually, in particular for OSS projects. Not everyone is paid to work on the project and if someone reports something on a Monday, they may only be able to dedicate significant more time on their week end for example.
> I would suggest to use "a week" instead to cover "more people's schedule".
Given how many three-day weekends exist in different places, I agree that three days may be a bit tight and seven might be a bit more palatable. However, I'm also not opposed to three days because I understand the need for addressing the incident in a timely manner. But I'd avoid "business days" (that also gets into things like whether a national holiday is or isn't a business day, etc).

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst:115
+
+When deciding on a resolution, the goal is to address the report in an appropriate way, while also looking to prevent or reduce the risk of continuing harm in the future.  Any action deemed necessary by the committee will be taken, but below is a list of possible resolutions:
+
----------------

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst:142
+
+Appeals can be requested up to 30 days after a resolution has been communicated to the individual(s). Appeals will be evaluated within a reasonable time frame.
+
----------------
Do we want to nail "reasonable time frame" down further? I'd have guessed we'd want to guarantee some resolution within some time period (two week goal, as with the original report?)

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D122937/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D122937