[llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

On 5 May 2016 at 23:06, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org> wrote:
> The point is that you wouldn’t know that from looking at the alternative code of conduct. I would need to spend months pouring through mailing lists posts and watching the community to feel its a good and safe place.

Right, this is a very good point for having something written down.


> One of the many reasons a code of conduct is useful is to show outsiders what our community is like, what we think is acceptable and what is not. They read that, then they know how they are expected to behave and how they will be treated. They are much more likely to be a part of that community.

My argument is that this is much more important in the US than in most
other places (see my response to Hal). But the US is a big enough
chunk that we cannot ignore.

However, we also can't ignore that the US is not the *only* source,
and for a few of us, having a code that is overly powerful while being
overly vague is a reason to *leave* the project. Some even mentioned
forking it.

Then my question is: how many people are we prepared to lose, and how
many are we expecting to gain? More importantly, can we gain without
losing?

>From the few passionate responses against the code in its current
form, it would be naive to say we could. So, can we change the code in
order to not lose those types of people?

Mind you, those that responded are but a few who *can* respond. The
kind of impasse this CoC creates, affects people that rarely
communicate, especially on controversial subjects such as this. And
those people don't blog about their problems, they just go be
productive elsewhere. You won't know they're gone until it's too late.


> But there are other goals of a CoC that can not be ignored and are not met by the alternative CoC.

Such as?

--renato