[llvm-dev] Code of Conduct Next Steps - Community feedback needed

[Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev]

> On Feb 17, 2020, at 2:11 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 17:52, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> The LLVM Code of Conduct has been in draft mode for several years now. In order to finalize the Code of Conduct, there are 3 steps left to complete:
> 
> Hi Tanya,
> 
> I've added my comments to the documents, but I agree with David, we
> should use the standard review tools we have for text, like we did
> before. Google Docs not only needs agreements but it can also be
> confusing to review if you're not used to.
> 
>> The LLVM Foundation board will propose the initial members of this committee and provide a period of time to collect feedback from members of the community.
> 
> It's very important that this committee is diverse and inclusive. We
> should be looking for inclusion in all areas: gender, ethnicity,
> corporate/academia/hobbyist, sub-projects, disability, geographical
> location, etc.
> 
> The CoC is not about code, but about behaviour and interpretation, so
> the committee needs to be more than just heavy coders. But it can
> directly affect coders, and subsequently, the code.
> 
> Therefore, it also cannot be random people from the Internet, just
> because they have done something in other projects. They need to be
> directly engaged into LLVM long term, either with code, research,
> infrastructure, documentation, conferences, etc.
> 
> I'd also be more comfortable with a large number of potential people,
> where sub-committees get selected as a small sub-set. If the same
> people make the decisions for all cases, the bias would be incredible.
> We need to make sure that we have enough people to be able to create
> sub-committees with enough members and still have a balanced
> (incomplete) block design, to ensure fairness.
> 
> Finally, my own personal issue is with mental health and disability.
> How will you make sure that someone on the committee understands
> (either through experience or clinical knowledge) the intricate
> details of the common causes of misinterpreted behaviour in
> non-neurotypical or with temporary/permanent poor mental health state?
> Not many people identify themselves as clearly as I do, but they
> suffer the same nonetheless. Without that covered, we may be
> alienating an important part of our community.

I appreciate the feedback on forming the committee. I have not written down any of my thoughts yet for review, but I share many that you brought up here. I’ll try hard to be transparent as possible with this process and share more details when I have them written down. 

Thanks,
Tanya


> 
> cheers,
> --renato