[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 19 09:22:00 PDT 2022

aaron.ballman accepted this revision.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.

Aside from the style nit with smart quotes, I think this looks great (feel free to fix those when landing instead of going for another round of review). Thank you @tonic for all the hard work that went into this!

================
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>`.
+
----------------
tonic wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > 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
> Those style quotes are required to make the links work correctly. 
> 
> Anything with @ is automatically turned into a email link.
> 
> I made the our/the change.
> Those style quotes are required to make the links work correctly.

That's not the quotes I was asking to have changed, so I'm sorry for the confusion. e.g.,
```
This isn’t a public
```
should be
```
This isn't a public
```
(We don't use smart quotes in other documents, so this is a change for consistency.)

> Anything with @ is automatically turned into a email link.

Ah, great to know, thanks!

================
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.
----------------
tonic wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Should we add a bullet point discussing anonymous reporting?
>  The process does require a working email so we can get more information from the reporter and get feedback on the resolution. It doesn't mean that someone can't create a new email and exclude personal information. However, I don't know if we should actively encourage anonymous reports either by explaining how to do it. 
> The process does require a working email so we can get more information from the reporter and get feedback on the resolution. It doesn't mean that someone can't create a new email and exclude personal information. However, I don't know if we should actively encourage anonymous reports either by explaining how to do it.

That's a fair point; we can circle back later if it turns out we find a need to add more details here.

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst:202
+  holds.
+* An imposed suspension (e.g., asking someone to “take a week off” from mailing
+  lists, bug tracker, IRC, Discord, repositories, or other communication
----------------
This is another instance of smart quotes: `“take a week off”` -> `"take a week off"`

================
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.
+
----------------
tonic wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > 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.
> Well, this is talking about in person events. AFAIK no working groups are in person right now. But it will apply to other events such as workshops at conferences. This will be documented either on the website or in docs. 
> 
> However, all working groups should have a response/contact person(s) clearly listed on the website for multiple reasons (including CoC immediate response). I plan to contact all working groups to gather this information in the coming weeks as it is not listed currently. Office hours will also need to mention this somewhere and right now that is on the webpage, but it should also be on the calendar listing as well. 
Excellent, thank you!

================
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).
+
----------------
tonic wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > 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".)
> In my opinion, it's going to depend on the violation and resolution. As the CoC committee will be changing over time, some data is important to keep longer than others. I think the CoC is going to have to figure this out over time. 
> In my opinion, it's going to depend on the violation and resolution. As the CoC committee will be changing over time, some data is important to keep longer than others. I think the CoC is going to have to figure this out over time.

Okay, that sounds like a good reason to not nail it down in the docs, thanks!

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

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

https://reviews.llvm.org/D122937