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

Thu May 5 15:54:25 PDT 2016

+1.  I really like the new version of the documents.

@Chandler - Thank you for leading this effort.  It's been a rough 
process, but the end goal is absolutely worthwhile.

On 05/05/2016 11:49 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev wrote:
> Another +1 from me.  I think this is really important and I appreciate all the work that's going into it.
>
>> On 2016-May-05, at 10:27, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Agreed. Thank you for spearheading this Chandler and we're looking better with every iteration that you've done to the document.
>>
>> -eric
>>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:07 AM Stephen Canon via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> I’d like to second what Owen said.  Thanks very much for the hard work on this, and I think that you’re picking up from a pretty good place with the document itself.
>>
>> – Steve
>>
>>> On May 5, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Owen Anderson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Chandler,
>>>
>>> I wanted to take a moment to thank you and Phil for your work on this document, and to voice my sincere support for both the goals and for the proposed CoC.
>>>
>>> —Owen
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 5, 2016, at 1:21 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Greetings all,
>>>>
>>>> This has come up a few times, and I would like to resume the effort to establish an LLVM code of conduct.
>>>>
>>>> First and foremost, many thanks to Philip Reames who sat down with me several months ago and worked through a number of suggestions that I've tried to incorporate into an updated patch with the draft text: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
>>>>
>>>> I think his updates plus a few others go a long way to address some of the concerns raised in the previous discussions. The big issues I saw being raised (but in my words, I trust others to chime in with useful clarifications or corrections as needed):
>>>>
>>>> First and foremost, this should not substantially change the community's conduct. We have strong existing practice of keeping good behavior. I hope the wording now makes this reasonably clear.
>>>>
>>>> There were also a number of things unclear or easily mistaken about the "reporting" process and what happens there. Philip in particular helped craft significant improvements here, and much of the credit is his. Notable things improved or addressed IMO:
>>>>
>>>> - Nothing should ever prevent the community from self-enforcing good behavior much as it has been for a long time.
>>>>
>>>> - When violations are reported, there may not have been any issue at all, in which case nothing happens.
>>>>
>>>> - Any issue may also have already been addressed much as our community has addressed issues on its own for many years. In those cases, the committee need not take any further action.
>>>>
>>>> - The committee will of course need to gather information from those involved and witnesses, and only make a decision with all of the information available. I think this is much more clear now.
>>>>
>>>> - Physical spaces may escalate the severity. Although I hope it never happens, I think it is more clear now that *if* this happens immediate steps will be taken to ensure everyone's safety and law enforcement involved if necessary.
>>>>
>>>> - It is structured to make it clear who is on the advisory committee. We still have to select an advisory committee, etc., which is something I'm *not* trying to figure out here and now. I think once we have the framework in place, we can start working on that and adjust the framework if issues with it come up in the process.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This still isn't a really formal thing with hard and fast rules. But I don't think that is what the community needs. I do think they provide the framework the community needs to effectively handle and cope if issues come up. While I suspect it is impossible to get everyone 100% happy here, I think this is very close and a reasonable starting point which can be evolved as necessary if problems arise.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Chandler
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev