Provide the complete response and reporting Code of Conduct documentation. Remove the word draft from all documents, add information about the CoC committee expectations and add a place for transparency reports.

[tonic]

Summary

This patch provides the response and reporting guides for Code of Conduct reports. It also removes the word draft from all the documents,
adds information about the CoC committee, and a place to put transparency reports. A post will also be made on Discourse to provide more details about the history of the code of conduct, this patch, and next steps. Please see that post for full details. I will put a link below once I have it.

[mehdi_amini]

It's great to finally see this coming out of "draft mode" :)

[mehdi_amini]

llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst

93

Is the double empty line intentional?

128

Does that include forbidding someone to send a patch to the project for example? What if this person published a patch, can someone else still cherry-pick it in the repo with the author attribution?

(I would think that a very extreme situation would be needed to trigger such a response anyway)

130

Is the double empty line intentional?

178

Formatting nit: this may not be very important, but this file does not have an empty line after the section titles.

[hubert.reinterpretcast]

llvm/docs/ReportingGuide.rst

75–80

Grammar: s/anytime/any time/;

llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst

33

Grammar: s/on site/on-site/;

45

I think this is missing "occur" after "other types of code of conduct violations".
I'm not sure what "they" in "they are infrequent" is meant to refer to.

[hubert.reinterpretcast]

llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst

106

"CoCc" is not used anywhere else in this patch.
s/CoCc/CoC Committee/;

108

Should this be business days with consideration for the locality, etc. of the reportee?

127

I'm not sure what style guide supports it, but other instances in this patch uses "ie.". It seems to me that most of the uses introduce examples though (so "e.g." may be more appropriate).

[mehdi_amini]

llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst

108

I find "business days" to be quite un-inclusive actually, in particular for OSS projects. Not everyone is paid to work on the project and if someone reports something on a Monday, they may only be able to dedicate significant more time on their week end for example.
I would suggest to use "a week" instead to cover "more people's schedule".

[aaron.ballman]

Thank you for working on this, I'm really glad to see the CoC coming out of DRAFT status and being finalized! I think these documents are going in a great direction, just found some minor points/questions.

llvm/docs/CodeOfConduct.rst

98

Please wrap to the usual 80-col limits and convert smart quotes like ’ into dumb quotes ' (here and elsewhere in your changes).

Do we want to make [e-mail] into links in this document so people can just click it if needed? (I don't believe that will add any additional spam burden on the account -- listing the address is sufficient to trigger spam.)

please see our Reporting Guide -> please see the Reporting Guide

114

Rather than having people go to a second source, it would be nice to list the members here directly. It's a bit of an extra maintenance burden, but who a CoC report is seen by is crucial information when filing a report, so it seems more user-friendly to not hide that behind another link.

119

Do we want to add any extra information about what's expected to be in the transparency report (or more importantly, what's expected to NOT make it into a transparency report) as not all readers may be familiar with this?

I see later that we do have some information on what's in the transparency reports elsewhere, so maybe we want to link to there from here?

llvm/docs/ReportingGuide.rst

66–67

Similar changes are needed for other section titles (so long as it's consistent within the document, what style you go with doesn't matter much to me).

66–67

Same question here about whether we want to make a link for the email address.

67–68

How does this change confidentiality of the report? e.g., should the reporter assume that in addition to the CoC team, all staff members have access to the report, or only the staff member contacted, something else?

70

I think this policy is reasonable, but it does leave some daylight for reports to be accidentally dropped if the meetup organizer doesn't pass the information along to the conduct team.

Would it make sense to modify this slightly to report the incident to the local meetup organizer AND CoC team at the same time, with the understanding that the local organizer should take immediate action and report back to the CoC team. This way, the CoC team is still alerted to the potential issue and it helps mitigate the risk that an event organizer doesn't report up (either accidentally or otherwise).

71–72

Should we add a bullet point discussing anonymous reporting?

71–72

llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst

20

It's not entirely clear that "listed on the LLVM website" is quite accurate. For example, we have working group meetings listed on the website, as well as community office hours, and neither of those will have a CoC response team. We may want to reword it slightly to say that there MAY be a code of conduct response team, but if there's not one specific to the event, file the concerns the usual way.

41

I <3 Oxford commas, no idea if others love them as much as I do.

60

Do we have a retention policy we want to mention for how long we keep all this data? (I read this as "we retain it forever".)

108

Given how many three-day weekends exist in different places, I agree that three days may be a bit tight and seven might be a bit more palatable. However, I'm also not opposed to three days because I understand the need for addressing the incident in a timely manner. But I'd avoid "business days" (that also gets into things like whether a national holiday is or isn't a business day, etc).

116

143

Do we want to nail "reasonable time frame" down further? I'd have guessed we'd want to guarantee some resolution within some time period (two week goal, as with the original report?)

[tonic]

I have addressed all the comments or responded why I did not make the change. I will be updating the patch next.

llvm/docs/CodeOfConduct.rst

98

Those style quotes are required to make the links work correctly.

Anything with @ is automatically turned into a email link.

I made the our/the change.

119

This section is meant to just list them, but I will add a link to the description.

llvm/docs/ReportingGuide.rst

66–67

Sphinx generates this into a link for the html pages automatically.

67–68

I will modify this to make clear that the staff is there to help you find a Code of Conduct team member and not resolve the incident.

70

Sure, I will add this.

71–72

The process does require a working email so we can get more information from the reporter and get feedback on the resolution. It doesn't mean that someone can't create a new email and exclude personal information. However, I don't know if we should actively encourage anonymous reports either by explaining how to do it.

llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst

20

Well, this is talking about in person events. AFAIK no working groups are in person right now. But it will apply to other events such as workshops at conferences. This will be documented either on the website or in docs.

However, all working groups should have a response/contact person(s) clearly listed on the website for multiple reasons (including CoC immediate response). I plan to contact all working groups to gather this information in the coming weeks as it is not listed currently. Office hours will also need to mention this somewhere and right now that is on the webpage, but it should also be on the calendar listing as well.

60

In my opinion, it's going to depend on the violation and resolution. As the CoC committee will be changing over time, some data is important to keep longer than others. I think the CoC is going to have to figure this out over time.

93

Nope. Will be fixed in updated version.

108

I will change this to a week as I agree it would meet more schedules.

128

Most likely yes. All of our methods to submit a patch to the project go through some sort of infrastructure - mailing list or Phab. So their access to those things would be removed through a ban.

If someone gets their permission and wants to take over a patch as their own then they can do so. However, they should not act as a proxy for someone who is banned. This would now be their patch.

This is a very specific situation and if someone is given a ban, the CoC committee would provide the actual details of the ban and have final say on this.

130

No, will fix.

143

Sure, I can change this.

178

Ok, will be fixed in next revision.

[tonic]

Addressing the reviewer requested changed.

[tonic]

I'd like to get this finalized this week, so if past reviewers are happy, please accept.

[aaron.ballman]

Aside from the style nit with smart quotes, I think this looks great (feel free to fix those when landing instead of going for another round of review). Thank you @tonic for all the hard work that went into this!

llvm/docs/CodeOfConduct.rst

98

Those style quotes are required to make the links work correctly.

That's not the quotes I was asking to have changed, so I'm sorry for the confusion. e.g.,

This isn’t a public

should be

This isn't a public

(We don't use smart quotes in other documents, so this is a change for consistency.)

Anything with @ is automatically turned into a email link.

Ah, great to know, thanks!

llvm/docs/ReportingGuide.rst

71–72

The process does require a working email so we can get more information from the reporter and get feedback on the resolution. It doesn't mean that someone can't create a new email and exclude personal information. However, I don't know if we should actively encourage anonymous reports either by explaining how to do it.

That's a fair point; we can circle back later if it turns out we find a need to add more details here.

llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst

20

Excellent, thank you!

60

In my opinion, it's going to depend on the violation and resolution. As the CoC committee will be changing over time, some data is important to keep longer than others. I think the CoC is going to have to figure this out over time.

Okay, that sounds like a good reason to not nail it down in the docs, thanks!

202

This is another instance of smart quotes: “take a week off” -> "take a week off"

[tonic]

llvm/docs/CodeOfConduct.rst

98

Ah, got it. I will fix those.

[hubert.reinterpretcast]

Got halfway through so far. Some editorial comments.

llvm/docs/CodeOfConduct.rst

95

Minor: Spelling correction.

llvm/docs/ReportingGuide.rst

-29

Minor: Fix mid-sentence double space.

-34–1

Fix possible typo that causes an incomplete sentence.

0–1

Minor: Formatting fix.

0–1

Minor: Many style guides would not capitalize "for" in title case.

2–3

Fix formatting.
s/in person/in-person/;

llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst

32

Unaddressed instance of Aaron's comment about applying title case consistently.

[hubert.reinterpretcast]

Some more editorial comments and a comment regarding some text that does not seem to convey whatever meaning was intended well.

llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst

41

I guess we aren't using "Oxford commas"?

44

Prior comment missed?
Grammar: s/on site/on-site/;

66–69

Prior comment missed?

I still don't know what this is trying to say. Organizers should use discretion in determining whether a talk should be ended early if Code of Conduct violations other than (any single instance) of harassment or violent threats has occurred? What does the "or they are infrequent" refer to?

Is the intent that the sentence about harassment of violent treats applies only to repeated or ongoing cases?

75

Minor: Title case.

164–165

Prior comment missed?

"CoCc" is not used anywhere else in this patch.
s/CoCc/CoC Committee/;

189

Inadvertent new bullet point?

261

Minor: Use lowercase "the", which would be consistent with other similar uses in this patch.

290

Inadvertent new bullet point?

[tonic]

So sorry, I think my ResponseGuide changes got reverted. I am going through these again to make sure they actually got completed.

[tonic]

llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst

66–69

Sorry, some changes got reverted accidentally.

[tonic]

Updating based upon reviewer feedback.

[tonic]

@hubert.reinterpretcast - Can you accept if you believe I have made all your requested changes?

[hubert.reinterpretcast]

There were some minor issues still left. LGTM whether they get fixed or not though.

llvm/docs/CodeOfConduct.rst

94–150

Minor: "commitee" should be "committee" instead.

llvm/docs/ReportingGuide.rst

-34–1

Minor: Should be "in-person" in place of "in person" here.

llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst

66–69

Not a problem; thanks for fixing.

[tonic]

Fix a couple typos.

llvm/docs/CodeOfConduct.rst

 ==============================
 LLVM Community Code of Conduct
 ==============================
 
-.. note::
-
-   This document is currently a **DRAFT** document while it is being discussed
-   by the community.
-
 The LLVM community has always worked to be a welcoming and respectful
 community, and we want to ensure that doesn't change as we grow and evolve. To
 that end, we have a few ground rules that we ask people to adhere to:
 
 * `be friendly and patient`_,
 * `be welcoming`_,
 * `be considerate`_,
 * `be respectful`_,

 by the project that the community uses for communication. It applies to all of
 your communication and conduct in these spaces, including emails, chats, things
 you say, slides, videos, posters, signs, or even t-shirts you display in these
 spaces. In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare
 cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the conduct
 amounts to an egregious violation of this code.
 
 If you believe someone is violating the code of conduct, we ask that you report
-it by emailing [e-mail]. For more details please see our
+it by emailing [e-mail]. For more details please see the 
 :doc:`Reporting Guide <ReportingGuide>`.
 
 .. _be friendly and patient:
 
 * **Be friendly and patient.**
 
 .. _be welcoming:
 
* **When we disagree, try to understand why.** Disagreements, both social and
   technical, happen all the time and LLVM is no exception. It is important that
   we resolve disagreements and differing views constructively. Remember that
   we're different. The strength of LLVM comes from its varied community, people
   from a wide range of backgrounds. Different people have different
   perspectives on issues. Being unable to understand why someone holds
   a viewpoint doesn't mean that they're wrong. Don't forget that it is human to
   err and blaming each other doesn't get us anywhere. Instead, focus on helping
   to resolve issues and learning from mistakes.
 
+Reporting
+=========
+
+If you believe someone is violating the code of conduct you can always report
+it to the LLVM Foundation Code of Conduct Committee by emailing
[e-mail]. All reports will be kept confidential. This isn't a public
+list and only members of the advisory committee will receive the report. For
+details on what to include in the report, please see the :doc:`Reporting Guide
+<ReportingGuide>`.
+
+If you believe anyone is in physical danger, please notify appropriate law
+enforcement first. If you are unsure what law enforcement agency is
+appropriate, please include this in your report and we will attempt to notify
+them.
+
+If the violation occurs at an event such as a Developer Meeting and requires
+immediate attention, you can also reach out to any of the event organizers or
+staff. Event organizers and staff will be prepared to handle the incident and
+able to help. If you cannot find one of the organizers, the venue staff can
+locate one for you. We will also post detailed contact information for specific
+events as part of each events’ information. In person reports will still be
+kept confidential exactly as above, but also feel free to (anonymously if
+needed) email [e-mail].
+
+Code of Conduct Committee
+=========================
+
+The committee will consist of a mininum of 5 members and members are asked to
+serve at least a 1 year term. New committee members will be selected by the
+current committee and the LLVM Foundation Board of Directors.
+
+When responding to a Code of Conduct report, the committee follows the
+following 
+:doc:`Response Guide<ResponseGuide>`.
+
+The current committee members are:
+
+* Kit Barton (kbarton\@llvm.org)
+* Kristof Beyls (kristof.beyls\@llvm.org)
+* Mike Edwards (medwards\@llvm.org)
+* Hal Finkel (hfinkel\@llvm.org)
+* Cyndy Ishida (cishida\@llvm.org)
+* Anton Korobeynikov (anton.korobeynikov\@llvm.org)
+* Tanya Lattner (tanyalattner\@llvm.org)
+* Chris Lattner (clattner\@llvm.org)
+* Tom Stellard (tstellar\@llvm.org)
+
+
+Transparency Reports
+====================
+
+There are currently no transparency reports.
+
+For details about what a Transparency Report is and what it contains, please see the :doc:`Response Guide<ResponseGuide>`.
+
 Questions?
 ==========
 
 If you have questions, please feel free to contact the LLVM Foundation Code of
-Conduct Advisory Committee by emailing [e-mail].
+Conduct Committee by emailing [e-mail].
 
 
 (This text is based on the `Django Project`_ Code of Conduct, which is in turn
 based on wording from the `Speak Up! project`_.)
 
 .. _Django Project: https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/
 .. _Speak Up! project: http://speakup.io/coc.html
 

llvm/docs/ReportingGuide.rst

-===============
-Reporting Guide
-===============
-
-.. note::
+=================================
+LLVM CoC Incident Reporting Guide
+=================================
+
+First of all, please do not feel like you may be a burden to us by reporting
+incidents. We consider reports an opportunity for us to act: by knowing about
+an incident, we can act on it if appropriate, and reduce continuation of
+problematic behavior.  If we don’t know, we can't learn or take any appropriate
+actions.
+
+If you are not sure the situation being reported was a :doc:`Code of
+Conduct<CodeOfConduct>` violation, we encourage you to still report it. We
+would much rather have reports where we decide to take no action, rather than
+miss a report of an actual violation. There is no harm in reporting an incident
+which is later determined not to be a violation, and knowing about incidents
+that are not violations can also help us to improve the Code of Conduct or the
+processes surrounding it.
+
+Reporting and Contact Information
+=================================
+
+* For any incident involving an online platform (e.g., mailing lists, forums, 
+  irc/discord/slack, etc) we ask that you make any reports by emailing 
+  [e-mail]. This is received by all members of the CoC Committee.
+
+* For LLVM Developers’ Meetings, please file a report with the on-site Code 
+  of Conduct team. Their names and contact details are listed on the event 
+  webpage. You can also approach any other staff member, who can be 
+  identified by special badges and often found at the registration desk, 
+  to help you locate a member of the Code of Conduct team. All incidents 
+  reported in-person at a LLVM Developers’ Meeting will be emailed to the 
+  Code of Conduct Committee. 
+
+* For meetups, please report the incident to the local meetup organizers first
+  and then email [e-mail] with your report. Each meetup will have a 
+  contact listed on the associated meetup page. If you feel the incident was 
+  not well handled by the local organizers, please include this information in
+  your email to [e-mail]. All meetup organizers who receive an 
+  in-person report are also asked to email [e-mail] with the
+  incident information.
 
-   This document is currently a **DRAFT** document while it is being discussed
-   by the community.
 
-If you believe someone is violating the :doc:`code of conduct <CodeOfConduct>`
-you can always report it to the LLVM Foundation Code of Conduct Advisory
-Committee by emailing [e-mail]. **All reports will be kept
-confidential.** This isn't a public list and only `members`_ of the advisory
-committee will receive the report.
-
-If you believe anyone is in **physical danger**, please notify appropriate law
+If you believe anyone is in physical danger, please notify appropriate law
 enforcement first. If you are unsure what law enforcement agency is
 appropriate, please include this in your report and we will attempt to notify
 them.
 
-If the violation occurs at an event such as a Developer Meeting and requires
-immediate attention, you can also reach out to any of the event organizers or
-staff. Event organizers and staff will be prepared to handle the incident and
-able to help. If you cannot find one of the organizers, the venue staff can
-locate one for you. We will also post detailed contact information for specific
-events as part of each events' information. In person reports will still be
-kept confidential exactly as above, but also feel free to (anonymously if
-needed) email [e-mail].
-
-.. note::
-   The LLVM community has long handled inappropriate behavior on its own, using
-   both private communication and public responses. Nothing in this document is
-   intended to discourage this self enforcement of community norms. Instead,
-   the mechanisms described here are intended to supplement any self
-   enforcement within the community. They provide avenues for handling severe
-   cases or cases where the reporting party does not wish to respond directly
-   for any reason.
+Guidelines for Reporting Incidents
+==================================
 
-Filing a report
-===============
+Please email [e-mail] with the following details (if possible):
 
-Reports can be as formal or informal as needed for the situation at hand. If
-possible, please include as much information as you can. If you feel
-comfortable, please consider including:
-
-* Your contact info (so we can get in touch with you if we need to follow up).
-* Names (real, nicknames, or pseudonyms) of any individuals involved. If there
-  were other witnesses besides you, please try to include them as well.
+* Your contact info (so we can get in touch with you). Include email and
+  optionally a phone number.
+* Names or descriptions of anyone who was involved or who witnessed the
+  incident.
 * When and where the incident occurred. Please be as specific as possible.
-* Your account of what occurred. If there is a publicly available record (e.g.
-  a mailing list archive or a public IRC logger) please include a link.
+* Your account of what occurred. If there is a written record (e.g. emails,
+  forum links, tweets, Slack, or Discord messages) please include screenshots,
+  as well as any available link.
 * Any extra context you believe existed for the incident.
 * If you believe this incident is ongoing.
+* If you have concerns about retaliation or your personal safety, please note
+  those concerns in your report.
 * Any other information you believe we should have.
 
-What happens after you file a report?
-=====================================
-
-You will receive an email from the advisory committee acknowledging receipt
-within 24 hours (and we will aim to respond much quicker than that).
-
-The advisory committee will immediately meet to review the incident and try to
-determine:
-
-* What happened and who was involved.
-* Whether this event constitutes a code of conduct violation.
-* Whether this is an ongoing situation, or if there is a threat to anyone's
-  physical safety.
-
-If this is determined to be an ongoing incident or a threat to physical safety,
-the working groups' immediate priority will be to protect everyone involved.
-This means we may delay an "official" response until we believe that the
-situation has ended and that everyone is physically safe.
-
-The working group will try to contact other parties involved or witnessing the
-event to gain clarity on what happened and understand any different
-perspectives.
-
-Once the advisory committee has a complete account of the events they will make
-a decision as to how to respond. Responses may include:
-
-* Nothing, if we determine no violation occurred or it has already been
-  appropriately resolved.
-* Providing either moderation or mediation to ongoing interactions (where
-  appropriate, safe, and desired by both parties).
-* A private reprimand from the working group to the individuals involved.
-* An imposed vacation (i.e. asking someone to "take a week off" from a mailing
-  list or IRC).
-* A public reprimand.
-* A permanent or temporary ban from some or all LLVM spaces (mailing lists,
-  IRC, etc.)
-* Involvement of relevant law enforcement if appropriate.
-
-If the situation is not resolved within one week, we'll respond within one week
-to the original reporter with an update and explanation.
-
-Once we've determined our response, we will separately contact the original
-reporter and other individuals to let them know what actions (if any) we'll be
-taking. We will take into account feedback from the individuals involved on the
-appropriateness of our response, but we don't guarantee we'll act on it.
-
-After any incident, the advisory committee will make a report on the situation
-to the LLVM Foundation board. The board may choose to make a public statement
-about the incident. If that's the case, the identities of anyone involved will
-remain confidential unless instructed by those individuals otherwise.
-
-Appealing
-=========
-
-Only permanent resolutions (such as bans) or requests for public actions may be
-appealed. To appeal a decision of the working group, contact the LLVM
-Foundation board at [e-mail] with your appeal and the board will review
-the case.
-
-In general, it is **not** appropriate to appeal a particular decision on
-a public mailing list. Doing so would involve disclosure of information which
-would be confidential. Disclosing this kind of information publicly may be
-considered a separate and (potentially) more serious violation of the Code of
-Conduct. This is not meant to limit discussion of the Code of Conduct, the
-advisory board itself, or the appropriateness of responses in general, but
-**please** refrain from mentioning specific facts about cases without the
-explicit permission of all parties involved.
-
-.. _members:
-
-Members of the Code of Conduct Advisory Committee
-=================================================
-
-The members serving on the advisory committee are listed here with contact
-information in case you are more comfortable talking directly to a specific
-member of the committee.
-
-.. note::
-
-   FIXME: When we form the initial advisory committee, the members names and private contact info need to be added here.
+If you are unable to provide all of this information, please still make the
+report and include as much information as you have.
 
+When handling a report, we follow our :doc:`Response Guide <ResponseGuide>`.
 
+Confidentiality
+===============
 
-(This text is based on the `Django Project`_ Code of Conduct, which is in turn
-based on wording from the `Speak Up! project`_.)
+All reports will be kept confidential with details shared only with the Code of
+Conduct committee members. In the case that a CoC committee member is involved
+in a report, the member will be asked to recuse themselves from ongoing
+conversations, and they will not have access to any reports at any time.
+Resolution action may also include removal of that member from the CoC
+committee.
+
+Some incidents happen in one-on-one interactions, and though details are
+anonymized, the reported person may be able to guess who made the report. If
+you have concerns about retaliation or your personal safety, please note those
+concerns in your report. You are still encouraged to report the incident so
+that we can support you while keeping our community members safe. In some
+cases, we can compile several anonymized reports into a pattern of behavior,
+and take action on that pattern. 
+
+Transparency reports will be published but will retain confidentiality. See the
+:doc:`Response Guide <ResponseGuide>`. for details on this.
+
+Following Up With Reporter(s)
+=============================
+
+Once a report is filed, the Code of Conduct committee will handle the review
+and follow up according to the procedures in the :doc:`Response Guide
+<ResponseGuide>`. 
+
+
+Thanks!
+=======
+This guide was created and inspired by the following: the `Django Project`_,
+`Carpentries Response Guide`_, and the `Write The Docs Response Guide`_.
 
 .. _Django Project: https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/
-.. _Speak Up! project: http://speakup.io/coc.html
+.. _Carpentries Response Guide: https://docs.carpentries.org/topic_folders/policies/enforcement-guidelines.html
+.. _Write The Docs Response Guide: https://www.writethedocs.org/code-of-conduct/#guidelines-for-reporting-incidents
+

llvm/docs/ResponseGuide.rst

+===============
+Response Guide
+===============
+
+This is a :doc:`Code of Conduct<CodeOfConduct>` (CoC) incident response guide
+used by the Code of Conduct Committee and LLVM event organizers.
+
+Code of Conduct Committee
+=========================
+
+All responses to Code of Conduct reports will be managed by a Code of Conduct
+Committee. 
+
+Additional Code of Conduct Response Teams
+=========================================
+
+In-person events will have an additional response team to immediately respond
+to an incident. For example:
+
+* Each LLVM Developers’ Meeting has a Code of Conduct response team.
+* For LLVM meetups, the local organizers will be the first point of contact.
+* Any other event funded by the LLVM Foundation or listed on the LLVM website,
+  will have a code of conduct response team or point of contact for CoC 
+  reports.
+
+These teams should determine if an :ref:`immediate response<Immediate Response
+Checklist>` is needed before sending the report to the Code of Conduct
+committee.
+
+.. _Receiving a report:
+
+Receiving a Report
+==================
+
+Reports are typically received by email ([e-mail]) or in person from
+the reporter or event CoC response team.
+
+When receiving a report by email, the CoC Committee should acknowledge receipt
+within 24 hours.  The acknowledgement should be understanding and compassionate
+but no commitment should be made on whether this is a violation or which action
+will be taken. Specific guidance is in the checklist below.
+
+For in-person events that have a violation reported, the report should be sent
+to the Code of Conduct committee within 24 hours by the on-site CoC response
+team. 
+
+
+.. _Immediate Response Checklist:
+
+Immediate Response Checklist
+============================
+
+The CoC committee generally works, decides, and communicates together. If the
+report indicates that an immediate response is required and other committee
+members are not available, any committee member may take the immediate action
+they think is necessary. In-person Code of Conduct response teams should use
+this checklist to determine if an immediate response is needed.
+
+* If the incident involves physical danger, contact the appropriate law
+  enforcement or event security immediately. Ensure the reporter feels safe and
+  stay with them if possible until help arrives.
+* If the act is ongoing and involves harassment or threats against someone in
+  any space (online or physical), any appropriate response (e.g., ban, physical
+  removal, or moderation) may be used to immediately stop it.
+* For events that include talks, organizers should end talks early if the
+  violations include harassment or violent threats. There may be talks where
+  other types of code of conduct violations occur and organizers should do 
+  their best to determine if a talk should be ended early or not. 
+
+When undertaking an immediate response, document the action and notify the
+committee within 24 hours. 
+
+
+Response Procedure
+==================
+
+The following is a summary of the steps the committee takes when responding to
+a reported incident. 
+
+1. Determine if there is a need for an :ref:`immediate response<Immediate
+   Response Checklist>`.
+
+2. :ref:`Acknowledge the report<Receiving a report>` within 24 hours.
+
+3. :ref:`Discuss the incident report<Incident Response Assessment>`, gather
+   more information, and determine a :ref:`resolution<Resolutions>`.
+
+4. During this process, the :ref:`reporter will be informed of the
+   resolution<Following Up With the Reportee>` and feedback is requested. This
+   feedback may or may not be used to re-evaluate the resolution.
+
+5. Inform the reportee of the resolution. The reportee is provided options to
+   :ref:`appeal<Appeal Process>`. 
+
+6. The :ref:`resolution<Resolutions>` is implemented.
+
+7. All reports, data, notes, and resolutions are logged in a private location
+   (e.g., Google Drive or other database).
+
+The committee will never make public statements about a resolution and will
+only publish :ref:`transparency reports<Transparency Reports>`. If a public
+statement is necessary and requested by the committee, it will be given by the
+LLVM Foundation Board of Directors.
+
+Report Acknowledgement
+======================
+
+When a report is received, the committee will reply to the reporter to confirm
+receipt within 24 hours of the incident being reported. 
+
+This acknowledgement will contain:
+
+* Acknowledgement of the incident report
+* Next steps of the committee for responding to the incident
+* Reminder of confidentiality policy regarding the report and parties involved
+
+All incident reports should be assessed if they require immediate response and
+acted on accordingly.
+
+.. _Incident Response Assessment:
+
+Incident Response Assessment
+============================
+
+The committee will assess the incident and determine an appropriate response.
+The assessment will be documented and retained in records. Here are some
+guidelines for the process:
+
+* Review report documentation to determine the content and context of the
+  incident.
+
+  * Request additional information if needed from the reporter.
+
+* Determine if it occurred within the scope of the CoC.
+* Determine if it violated the CoC and specifically which part.
+* Consult documentation of past incidents for patterns of behavior (if
+  available and applicable).
+* Follow up with the reportee to get their view or any other additional
+  information.
+* Determine appropriate resolutions to the incident when all information has
+  been gathered.
+* Notify the reporter of the resolution and request feedback. This may or may
+  not be used to reevaluate the resolution.
+
+The committee will aim to have a resolution agreed upon within two weeks of
+receipt of the incident report. In the event that a resolution cannot be
+determined within that time, the CoC committee will respond to the reporter(s)
+with an updated and projected timeline for resolution. 
+
+.. _Following Up With the Reportee:
+
+Following Up With the Reportee
+==============================
+
+When following up with the reportee, the committee will:
+
+* Explain that an incident was reported that involves the reportee.
+* In this explanation, the focus will be on the impact of their behavior, not
+  their intent.
+* Reiterate the Code of Conduct and that their behavior may be deemed
+  inappropriate.
+* Give them the opportunity to state their view of the incident.
+* Explain the possible resolutions that may be enforced should the CoC
+  committee determine there is a breach.
+
+The reportee will be given a week to respond with the option to request
+additional time if needed and subject to approval of the CoC Committee.
+
+.. _Resolutions:
+
+Resolutions
+===========
+
+The committee should agree unanimously on a resolution. In the event that the
+committee cannot reach a unanimous resolution, the LLVM Foundation Board of
+Directors will help resolve the situation and determine if the resolution can
+proceed without a unanimous vote.
+
+When deciding on a resolution, the goal is to address the report in an
+appropriate way, while also looking to prevent or reduce the risk of continuing
+harm in the future. Any action deemed necessary by the committee will be
+taken, but below is a list of possible resolutions:
+
+* Taking no further action as the incident was determined not to be a
+  violation.
+* A private verbal warning and/or reprimand from the committee to the
+  individual(s) involved and request to stop this behavior. This conversation
+  may happen in person, email, by phone, video chat, or IRC.
+* Request that the reportee avoid any interaction with, and physical proximity
+  to, another person for the remainder of the event.
+* Refusal of alcoholic beverage purchases by the reportee at LLVM events.
+* Ending a talk/tutorial/etc at an LLVM event early. See immediate response
+  checklist for further clarification.
+* Not publishing the video or slides of a talk.
+* Not allowing a speaker to give (further) talks at LLVM events for a specified
+  amount of time or ever.
+* Requiring that the reportee immediately leave an event and not return.
+* Immediately ending any volunteer responsibilities and privileges the reportee
+  holds.
+* An imposed suspension (e.g., asking someone to "take a week off" from mailing
+  lists, bug tracker, IRC, Discord, repositories, or other communication
+  forms). 
+* A permanent or temporary ban from some or all LLVM Project spaces (online or
+  in person).
+
+Once a resolution is agreed upon, but before it is enacted, the committee will
+contact the reporter and any other affected parties to explain the proposed
+resolution. They will ask if this resolution is acceptable and must note
+feedback for the record. However, the committee is not required to act on this
+feedback.
+
+.. _Appeal Process:
+
+Appeal Process
+===============
+
+Any individual(s) determined to have violated the CoC have the right to appeal
+a decision. An appeal can be made directly to the committee by sending an email
+to [e-mail] with subject line Code of Conduct Incident Appeal.
+
+The email should include documentation related to the incident to support the
+appeal. The said documentation may include, but does not have to be limited to:
+
+* Information from the reportee justifying reasoning for the appeal.
+* Statements from other individuals involved in the incident to support the
+  appeal.
+
+Appeals can be requested up to 30 days after a resolution has been communicated
+to the individual(s). The committee will aim to evaluate appeals within two weeks of receipt. In the event that appeal can not be evaluated within that time, the CoC committee will respond with an updated and projected timeline. 
+
+
+Conflicts of Interest
+=====================
+
+Committee members should declare any conflicts of interest as soon as possible
+and before any official committee meetings. This can mean being friends with
+one of the involved parties, or anything else that may make it harder to remain
+neutral.
+
+A conflict of interest does not inherently mean the committee member can no
+longer participate in the process, as that would make it very hard for the team
+to act on reports involving well-known people in the community. However, if a
+report concerns a team member or someone they work directly with, they probably
+should not take part in the process. The team will decide together on where to
+draw this line in individual cases. Where possible, any conversations with
+offenders should not be done by people who know them, as it can be very
+unpleasant for everyone involved.
+
+If a report is received concerning a committee member, that member must not be
+involved in the response process. The rest of the committee will meet and
+decide on the report without the reported committee member being present, and
+will not share more information than they would have with a non-member. If a
+member of the committee is found to have violated the CoC, they may no longer
+be able to keep serving on the committee.
+
+Confidentiality
+===============
+
+All reports will be kept confidential with details shared only with the Code of
+Conduct committee members. However, the Code of Conduct Committee will always
+comply with law enforcement when directed. In the case that a CoC committee
+member is involved in a report, the member will be asked to recuse themselves
+from ongoing conversations, and they will not have access to reports after the
+enforcement decision has been made. 
+
+In the event of a temporary suspension or ban, the appropriate people must be
+notified of the ban in order to restrict access to infrastructure or events.
+These individuals will only be notified of the person’s name and the
+restrictions imposed. They will be under a confidentiality clause and not
+allowed to respond to questions regarding the ban and should direct all
+questions to the CoC committee. 
+
+.. _Transparency Reports:
+
+Transparency Reports
+====================
+
+Lack of transparency in the outcomes of our Code of Conduct incidents leaves
+our community without an understanding of how or if the organizers worked to
+resolve incidents. The CoC committee should aim to publish transparency
+reports, if reports are received, after major events (such as the LLVM
+Developers’ meetings) and on the following dates: Jan 15, April 15, July 15,
+Oct 15. 
+
+A transparency report consists of 2 parts:
+
+* An overview of the reports received, and resolutions.
+* A more detailed summary of each reported incident and the resolution while
+  maintaining confidentiality.
+
+These reports will be published on the LLVM website.
+
+
+This guide was created and inspired by the following: the `Django Project`_,
+`Carpentries Response Guide`_, and the `Write The Docs Response Guide`_.
+
+.. _Django Project: https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/
+.. _Carpentries Response Guide: https://docs.carpentries.org/topic_folders/policies/enforcement-guidelines.html
+.. _Write The Docs Response Guide: https://www.writethedocs.org/code-of-conduct/#guidelines-for-reporting-incidents
+

llvm/docs/UserGuides.rst

.. toctree::
    ORCv2
    OpaquePointers
    JITLink
    NewPassManager
    NVPTXUsage
    Phabricator
    Passes
    ReportingGuide
+   ResponseGuide
    Remarks
    SourceLevelDebugging
    StackSafetyAnalysis
    SupportLibrary
    TableGen/index
    TableGenFundamentals
    Vectorizers
    WritingAnLLVMPass