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

[Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev]

Hi All,

+1 to everything Lang said.

The CoC rocks!

Cheers,
-Quentin
> On May 5, 2016, at 7:09 PM, Lang Hames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> To Tanya, Chandler, Philip, and everyone else who worked on this: Thank you! I really like the revised version of the CoC. The extra emphasis on continuity with existing standards answers the minor concerns I had with the original version, and I think you did a great job at capturing the spirit of the community.
> 
> Renato, Joachim, and others who are concerned: For what it's worth I lean libertarian on these things, and my gut instinct is to distrust attempts to codify what is and isn't reasonable behaviour. As you say - any codification has the potential to be subverted for mischief. That said, given the emphasis the new document places on maintaining our existing culture I don't think it will encourage any mischief in practice, and it might encourage people to join the community who would otherwise have been wary of doing so. That seems like a big net win.
> 
> Cheers,
> Lang.
> 
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:07 PM Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>] On Behalf Of Chris
> > Lattner via llvm-dev
>  
> > While I have no way to compel you to believe me, I really really do want
> > the LLVM community to be vibrant and awesome, and it makes me sad that you
> > apparently assume otherwise.
> >
> > -Chris
> 
> I don't read it as "nefariously harm" so much as ex-nihilo asserting
> a Foundation exists and has some kind of control over the community
> (e.g., insisting on a CoC).
> 
> I want to be super clear, the foundation is not insisting on anything, nor can it.
> 
> **I** am making this proposal as an active and long time contributor to LLVM. Many other members of the community have also expressed support for this on this and previous threads. But our support is given as individual members of the community and it should be valued as such.
> 
> I also want to say very clearly that for me, having a code of conduct that satisfies certain basic criteria isn't just incredibly important for me, personally. It is absolutely **essential**. I personally need this. Perhaps I'm wrong for needing it, and you or others may not understand or agree or even care. I don't expect any of that. But since I think it helps for folks to be explicit about the degree to which they care, I wanted to volunteer to be explicit.
> 
> -Chandler
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/c19f8103/attachment.html>