[llvm-dev] RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct

[Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:45 PM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
wrote:

> +1 to the general idea of a CoC
>
> A couple of specific thoughts:
>
> 1) It would have been nice for this not to appeared out of thin air.  In
> an ideal world, a previous update would have mentioned ongoing thought and
> research in this area.
>

Well, water and bridge and all. =/ I understand the challenges of this
coming out of thin air, but I also don't know how to have proceeded
differently. I didn't really have a useful intermediate state to share or I
would have. =/ It is definitely something to avoid where possible, I'm just
not sure it was realistically possible in this instance.

2) Several folks have mentioned that they'd like to see this less verbose.
> I disagree, but I do think that it sometimes comes across as focusing too
> much on the details.  It might be good to summarize the general principals,
> and then list for the more legalistic bits as notes or footnotes.  Make it
> clear that a list isn't the *point*, but it does help to clarify.
>

I feel like the first two paragraphs tried to do exactly this. Is there
same specific part that didn't work for you?

I think the challenge here is that most ideas I have end up making the
early sections nearly as long. The list of principles is already formatted
to facilitate skimming and so I feel like this is a pretty good compromise
on the verbosity front. If you have specific ideas that you think would be
better, I'm all ears.


> 3) I really liked the suggestion down thread of reframing "reporting" as
> "asking for moderation".  I think it needs to be clear that there can be
> consequences, but focusing on resolving the situation at hand seems like a
> better starting point for most discussions.
>

There is a very important problem with calling this moderation. That
implies that the event has to *continue* and also implies some levels of
necessary on-going interaction. For a broad range of the ways that these
things can go wrong, it is really important that the person who has become
uncomfortable be able to leave the situation and feel safe. Moderation and
mediation don't provide that kind of safety for some, and I think we need
to design this to be supportive of the most challenging cases.

Of course, when moderation or mediation are the appropriate *responses* to
a report, I would hope they are used. Perhaps it would be helpful to add
them to the list? I'm imagining an added bullet point to the "Responses may
include" section along the lines of:

* Providing either moderation or mediation to ongoing interactions (where
appropriate and safe).

Thoughts?

-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/da48241d/attachment.html>