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

[Nathan Wilson via llvm-dev]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:32 PM Nathan Wilson <nwilson20 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:23 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > From: "Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> > Some back story here. I have gotten many requests through email and
>>>> > at the developer meetings about having a Code of Conduct and
>>>> > specifically having one for LLVM Developer Meetings. It has been
>>>> > discussed at many of the LLVM socials as well. I can see in
>>>> > hindsight this might appear to be coming out of nowhere for some,
>>>> > but it really is coming from a need we (the board) heard from the
>>>> > community.
>>>>
>>>> This is very useful information. Can you summarize the motivations of
>>>> those making the requests (anonymized, of course)? It seems odd that
>>>> someone would ask about a 'Code of Conduct' without some particular
>>>> impetus, and we obviously want to make sure that we're addressing the
>>>> specific requirements that have come up. What information was being sought?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In fact, I'm not aware of these requests being tied to any particular
>>> impetus. While that seems strange to you, it is not uncommon.
>>>
>>
>> I was also wondering about this. For example, was the motivation that
>> there have been some ad hominem attacks rather than technical discussion?
>>
>
> As I just said, I'm not aware of any *specific* events that were the
> motivation. We have certainly had arguments get off the rails in the past,
> and have had to correct them, but I don't think there is any specific ones
> that were motivating this discussion.
>
> The motivations I am aware of I wrote in my reply to Hal.
>

Okay, thanks. Sorry about the redundancy.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The industry at large has hit a large number of specific issues over the
>>> past few years that have provide (IMO) ample motivation for setting
>>> reasonable guidelines in place *before* there is a specific impetus. I
>>> don't think there is any reason to be surprised that several people within
>>> the community would notice the lack of a code of conduct and wish it
>>> existed. I had noted the lack, and I very much wished it existed, but
>>> without any specific impetus.
>>>
>>> Now, a reasonable question is "does this address the concerns of those
>>> who have voiced them". I don't want to speak for Tanya, but I have heard
>>> confirmation from all of those that I have heard express such a concern
>>> that what is being proposed addresses their concerns. (Not to say that it
>>> is perfect, just that it appears to be sufficient.)
>>>
>>
>> You mentioned suggestions or improvements; would you, or the Foundation,
>> consider modifying the CoC? I ask because it seems there seems to be some
>> contention among the community about the phrasing of various sections.
>>
>
> Consider? Absolutely. In the draft I'm keeping, I have already applied
> several excellent suggestions from this thread. I expect there will be more.
>
> I will send out a fresh draft tomorrow (maybe tonight?) with a summary of
> the changes and the overarching comments. This will be a new thread, etc.
>

Good to know. Thanks for the information.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/13fcb2cb/attachment.html>