This is an archive of the discontinued LLVM Phabricator instance.

Introduce a *draft* of a code of conduct for the LLVM community and the associated reporting guide.

Authored by chandlerc on Oct 14 2015, 1:31 PM.



I want to emphasize that at this point these are just drafts!

I also want to very strongly discourage any substantive discussion here.
Feel free to provide normal RST and English review on the details, but
all discussion of th econtent, substance, and even the concept of a code
of conduct should take place on llvm-dev. I will be starting a fresh
thread there with an in-line copy of this updated version very soon.

Diff Detail


Event Timeline

chandlerc updated this revision to Diff 37385.Oct 14 2015, 1:31 PM
chandlerc retitled this revision from to Introduce a *draft* of a code of conduct for the LLVM community and the associated reporting guide..
chandlerc updated this object.
chandlerc added reviewers: reames, grosbach, bogner, jmolloy.
chandlerc added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
reames added inline comments.Oct 14 2015, 3:12 PM
34 ↗(On Diff #37385)

If you separate out the second sentence and intent it as a block quote, it will focus the eye on the key point (the first sentence) and away from the list (which is important, but not the focus).

47 ↗(On Diff #37385)

Same indentation point here after first sentence.

71 ↗(On Diff #37385)

The moderation point got dropped here.

Overall, good. My two points inline: too localised list of terms, and unilateral/executive decisions.

Even on physical situations, the accused might be right, but still put in danger the accuser not just because there is tension, but because how people react can often lead to more damages than how people attack. The key here is *safety*. f we can't immediately spot the problem (no one with a knife, or visibly aggressive), we can't assume anything, and both parties need to be separated, not necessarily kicked/banned. None of that can happen electronically, and the emotions build a lot slower and in a less uncontrolled way.

I know this is specifics and don't belong to this document, but it's understanding the specifics that we'll get the document right.

For physical situations, the document is appropriate. For electronic situations, the reporting guide's execution code is highly inappropriate.


38 ↗(On Diff #37385)

This list is too long and American centred. You're trying to include nomenclature that only makes sense in one country, to include more differences in that region and ignoring the differences in other regions. This can be seen as derogatory in itself, especially by the people not included in that list.

If you want to include specific classifications to help people feel included, you'll have to include them *all*. That'll warrant a search on every culture that LLVM has physical and electronic reach and what are their specific concerns.

The sensible alternative is to list the basic ones. The *key* here is in the text:

This includes, but is not limited to

and also...

This isn’t an exhaustive list of things that you can’t do. Rather, take it in the spirit in which it’s intended - a guide to make it easier to communicate and participate in the community.

If you have questions, please feel free to contact the LLVM Foundation Code of ​Conduct Advisory Committee

My proposal:

This includes, but is not limited to members of any ethnicity, gender, nationality, social status, personal choices, sexuality, religion, age or disability.

I also agree with Philip that blockquote will look better. Maybe bullet points like you have below for the behaviours.

25 ↗(On Diff #37385)

Not all meetings are at hotels. :)

47 ↗(On Diff #37385)

Immediately is a strong word, and mostly applies to physical gatherings. I don't think you want to give the impression that there will be always someone on the reporter's time zone.

62 ↗(On Diff #37385)

How can you possibly have a *complete* account on what happened if you don't take the accused's view?

90 ↗(On Diff #37385)

I vehemently disagree with this for all but physical encounters. I believe every decision should allow being contested, and I also believe that others may be called by the accused to testify. If we're willing to resolve conflict, we either do it right, or we don't do at all.

This is the wording that is putting a lot of people on edge. There is ample scope for an unilateral, executive and final decision to be taken against people that cannot defend themselves because there is mechanism for them to do so. We have to fix both both problems:

  1. Guarantee that the accused will have his/her view considered with the same weight as the accuser.
  1. Guarantee that any decision can be contested by adding new information, or points of view.

The former is the only rational choice in a just society. The latter becomes harder to abuse as time (and repeat offences) go by, so it will naturally curb abuse on the side of the accused.

chandlerc updated this revision to Diff 37839.Oct 20 2015, 2:14 AM

Update with several typo fixes, formatting fixes, and addressing several
comments made.

Numerous updates here. Many thanks for the reviews here to catch things I had missed.

I also have at least two updates here based on substantive comments on the main thread: the opening paragraph has been re-worded based on feedback from Rafael, and the wording around "professionals" has been shortened. I will post an update to the main thread to highlight this shortly.

Renato, to your primary comment, I think that the discussion of that is a very substantive discussion, and so is better held on the llvm-dev thread, and not here. As I have said, I'm trying to only focus on highly mechanical issues here because the patch review has substantially less visibility to the community.

Please see detailed comments inline.

34 ↗(On Diff #37385)

How important is this? To me, the bold already conveys the emphasis necessary, and I'm hesitant to deviate further from the widely used format without a clear reason. I feel like indenting this won't make much of a difference and would be inconsistent with the rest of this section.

We could turn the list into a bulleted list as below, but that seems like it would not really help the situation.

While this is "just formatting", if you think we're straying too far into content or substantive debate, I'm happy to go back to the main thread and have the discussion there.

38 ↗(On Diff #37385)

I think this comment is much better addressed in the primary thread. This would be a substantive change and I don't want to dive into detailed substance here. Could you re-post your concern there?

47 ↗(On Diff #37385)

Same reply. Will be consistent how ever that shakes out.

25 ↗(On Diff #37385)

Great catch, fixed.

47 ↗(On Diff #37385)

I would very much like the people we end up with on the advisory committee to wordsmith what this wording looks like. I think "as soon as possible" works here equally well, but I don't really care, and I suspect the people handling the reports will care more and I'd rather defer to them.

This seems like a fairly low-level wording detail (which is why I responded here), but if this is a serious concern of yours, you should raise it on the full thread so we ensure it has sufficient visibility. I'll try to respond there in kind.

62 ↗(On Diff #37385)

I'd love to just respond to this as I think it is an easy bit of confusion to clear up, but I think this question would be better asked on the main thread and I'll try to respond there. Ultimately, this is a question about the *content*, and as I said I want that discussion to be on the wider forum, not in a patch review.

71 ↗(On Diff #37385)

Thanks, added back. I put it first. I don't really care where it goes.

90 ↗(On Diff #37385)

Again, I'm very happy to discuss this, but this really should be discussed on the main thread as it is a very substantive discussion.

Renato, to your primary comment, I think that the discussion of that is a very substantive discussion, and so is better held on the llvm-dev thread, and not here. As I have said, I'm trying to only focus on highly mechanical issues here because the patch review has substantially less visibility to the community.

When you moved the text here, I took it as the "right" place to discuss all and honestly didn't read the description. Sorry about that.

I'll continue the two main topics on the list.


35 ↗(On Diff #37839)

Such a long list of small items will be weird as a bullet list... and I agree a block quote will call out for attention more than the main point. If the list wasn't that long, the formatting problem would be greatly reduced.

48 ↗(On Diff #37839)

This is just a wording issue. I think "as soon as possible" is the best in an international context. There is very little room for interpretation other than what everyone already knows it means.

I still think this doesn't convey the intention of codifying, not
changing, how we operate.

We never had an issue with nicks like sabre or expressions like "cargo
cult". I don't think we should open the door to that.

Wordsmith is not my strong point, but how about

The LLVM community has always worked to strike a balance between open
communication and being a welcoming and respectful community. We want
to ensure that doesn't change as we grow and evolve.

A vast example of past community interaction is available online. This
document intends to codify that in a few ground rules that we ask

people to adhere to.


jmolloy resigned from this revision.Dec 12 2015, 5:25 AM
jmolloy removed a reviewer: jmolloy.

Resigning from this as it's stale as part of a phab declutter.

Hi Chandler,

Thanks for pushing this forward!

A quick comment inlined.


28 ↗(On Diff #37839)

Could we detail who are receiving that email?
The rational is that we may have a problem with the very person(s) that are receiving this information. The information may be somewhere else in the document and if that the case, I missed it, and a link to it would be helpful :).

emaste added a subscriber: emaste.Dec 16 2015, 10:10 AM
chandlerc updated this revision to Diff 56244.May 5 2016, 1:13 AM

Updating the draft with several smaller fixes and a bunch of improvements to
the reporting guidelines based on a long discussion and some initial wording
provided by Philip Reames. I've reworded this substantially, but most of the
content and ideas are his.

As before, please keep the most content-heavy discussion on llvm-dev rather
than here. I'll be starting a fresh thread there shortly with a high level
overview of the current state as I see it.

chandlerc added inline comments.May 5 2016, 1:19 AM
29 ↗(On Diff #56244)

I think the reporting guide makes this clear now, but if more clarifications are needed, please let me know.

75 ↗(On Diff #56244)

Philip, you had suggested wording here to me offline that said "may choose", I wonder if it would be better to say "will try"?

While it may not be possible or reasonable to do, I think that every effort need to be made here. Thoughts?

Hi Chandler,

I think this is a much better version than the previous. Most of my comments below are on wording, with some added background to help.

Thanks for working on this!

rengolin added inline comments.May 5 2016, 3:00 AM
36 ↗(On Diff #56244)

"social and economic status" is less crass, I think.

38 ↗(On Diff #56244)

Maybe put an "etc." at the end?

Even though you said "not limited to", the "etc" usually comes along, as it helps people understand that this is not an exhaustive list (though it is exhausting to read and understand the difference between all of them, which I don't claim to).

10 ↗(On Diff #56244)

"... or felt harassed / uncomfortable / worried whatever in any other way..."

I don't think we can catch everything in the Code, and I also don't think that "reporting" should be exclusively for things in the Code.

28 ↗(On Diff #56244)

"if needed" repeated. I personally would remove the second, as "feel free" already implies "if needed".

37 ↗(On Diff #56244)

This is good.

I read this saying we *prefer* to deal with issues as we have always done, but when that doesn't work, or the person is too shy/fragile (it's a deep wound, invisible threat), or they just don't know how to deal with it, they should try the board.

Is that what everyone else reads, too?

48 ↗(On Diff #56244)

Including other people may need asking them first. Some people really don't like to be pulled into a conflict that is not theirs.

75 ↗(On Diff #56244)

"will try" is better, as "may choose" indicates you don't need to even try.

I think you really ought (try to) to contact *all* affected parties before *any* decision is taken, and this need to be clear.

82 ↗(On Diff #56244)

"Nothing, if we..."

86 ↗(On Diff #56244)

I'd take the ()'s, as assuming plural is always less accusatory.

99 ↗(On Diff #56244)

I'd rather say "people involved" than "reporter", since we should really take everyone's point of view into account, or this will end up as a one-sided deal.

We're trying to resolve conflicts, which are composed by multiple people with different opinions. Bad behaviour is generally not alone, and fights usually mean both sides are wrong to at least some degree.

It's perfectly possible that a reprimand will go to the reporter instead, so we shouldn't rule out those possibilities, or people will feel protected by the code and then abuse of it.

122 ↗(On Diff #56244)

Excellent. This is a very necessary paragraph.

I am still opposed to this. I think think this fails to capture the
desire to codify the current practices, not change them. I am afraid
that doing this will push us in the direction of

And we will spend time cleansing ourselves from "dominators" and "cargo cult".


This commit is just silly. The Oxford dictionary[1,2] clearly states:

  • Master: A machine or device directly controlling another: [AS MODIFIER]: a master cylinder
  • A device, or part of one, directly controlled by another: [AS MODIFIER]: a slave cassette deck

If we're going to get rid of all words that *may* have an "inconsiderate" meaning, we'll be left with nothing.

In addition to Dominator, think of LHS / RHS. How many very inconsiderate meanings the words "right" and "left" have? And how political and deep this could go either way. Are we going to replace all LHS/RHS for ThisSide and ThatSide?

What about all the literature that already mentions Master/Slave, Dominator, LHS/RHS, are we going to change them, too? I think not.

I would have flatly refused that commit under these conditions, and I hope we don't start doing that in LLVM.



reames edited edge metadata.May 5 2016, 3:52 PM

Overall, I'm very happy with the revised version.

I like most of rengolin minor wording comments. +1 to those I haven't explicitly replied to.

48 ↗(On Diff #56244)

Disagree. Individuals can certainly chose to stay out of a situation or not comment, but it should not be the reporters responsibility to establish that. That's the appropriate role for the advisory board.

75 ↗(On Diff #56244)

I agree that "will try" is an improvement over my original wording.

rafael added inline comments.May 6 2016, 8:34 AM
24 ↗(On Diff #56244)

Just noticed this part and I find it even more troublesome than the rest.

I am an atheist and anti religious. Before all this discussion about the code of conduct most people might not even have noticed it other then by some FSM t-shirt simply because I know it would be out of topic for the list, irc channels and conferences.

But if you are a believer and you follow me on facebook or start a chat about it at a bar there is a pretty good chance you will be offended.

And that is symmetrical. I may be offended by someone's facebook post, and might decide to just not follow that person anymore. That has nothing to do with them reviewing my code or the other way around.

zturner added a subscriber: zturner.May 6 2016, 9:26 AM
zturner added inline comments.
50–52 ↗(On Diff #56244)

Not crazy about this line. Why are members of the LLVM community special in this regard? Everyone should be respectful to everyone, that's just being a good person. But you can't police that. Sure, we can police it within our community, but outside? If I go to a political protest and I'm shouting at someone, all of a sudden I'm not "being respectful to people outside the LLVM community."

This is an LLVM code of conduct, not a life code of conduct. Please don't attempt to police peoples' actions outside of the LLVM community.

colinl added a subscriber: colinl.May 6 2016, 9:47 AM

I'm opposed to adopting this document. I don't think it solves a particular problem and it seems likely to create many.

chandlerc updated this revision to Diff 56441.May 6 2016, 11:29 AM
chandlerc marked 8 inline comments as done.
chandlerc edited edge metadata.

Incorporating several suggested wording changes.

Updating D13741: Introduce a *draft* of a code of conduct for the LLVM community and the

associated reporting guide.

I am still opposed to this. I think think this fails to capture the
desire to codify the current practices, not change them. I am afraid
that doing this will push us in the direction of

And we will spend time cleansing ourselves from "dominators" and "cargo cult".

I don't agree, but please raise this on the llvm-dev thread rather than here because I'd like to avoid having two separate discussions about the core substance.

Same suggestion for Colin. If you want to object to the core idea here, please do so on the llvm-dev thread where most of the substantive discussion is taking place.

Below I'm trying to focus on the really excellent wording comments, thanks Renato and others.

36 ↗(On Diff #56244)

I don't really disagree, but I'm not sure this is important enough to deviate from the existing practice that this wording is based on. I don't feel strongly either way though.

38 ↗(On Diff #56244)

I'm not sure this really helps though -- it seems to make the long list more awkward than it helps to me. But if this is helping lots of folks, cool.

50–52 ↗(On Diff #56244)

The top of the document tries to indicate that this is meant to guide behavior within LLVM community spaces. The wording here just means that these guidelines apply to people not usually part of the community but communicating within those spaces.

Yes, there is a clause about behavior outside of LLVM spaces because without that really bad behavior can "dodge" the code and it becomes meaningless. We're working on ideas to scope it even more narrowly in wording, but the intent is certainly that this doesn't apply to completely unrelated activities.

If your concern is higher level than a wording concern, as with others I would suggest you voice that on the main llvm-dev thread.

10 ↗(On Diff #56244)

I would hope that the code has sufficiently broad wording to cover exactly what you said...

Maybe the issue is that "If you believe someone is ..." is a fairly definite statement? We could say:

If you think someone might be ...


If you believe someone might be ...
37 ↗(On Diff #56244)

I wouldn't use the word "prefer" because that seems to mean using other means isn't "preferred". But it is definitely intended as encouragement and support of this behavior when done well.

99 ↗(On Diff #56244)

I've switched to "individuals involved" as elsewhere. I agree this should jsut be generic.

Thanks Chandler, most of my comments were addressed. I just added a few comments, but it's mostly ok.

25 ↗(On Diff #56441)

Too many people feel very strongly about this to warrant some more substantial changes.

I personally feel this is not so bad for two things:

  1. It says "may affect", not "will affect". Not a very strong point per se, but strong enough given point two.
  1. Being unfair in the evaluation and punishment of cases like that would go directly against this very code. Blocking someone because they were seen with a silly T-shirt in their Facebook pictures will be a clear case of bullying, and thus could be reported by this very code.

If the committee is really serious about bullying, then the committee will put itself on the list of potential offenders, and they should be judged in the same manner.

If they don't, than we have much bigger problems that the code itself...

11 ↗(On Diff #56441)

I don't feel strongly about this. "might" seems worse than "is", I think.

49 ↗(On Diff #56441)

When related to witnesses, this is a cultural issue.

Unless there is a criminal investigation going, people in some countries (including the UK) feel *very* uncomfortable to be included in someone's else personal discussion. Doing so would clearly be marked as bullying and violate the CoC.

If we want people in other countries to also feel safe, we need to word in a way that they can understand their cultural issues will make them feel safe.

chandlerc added inline comments.May 6 2016, 1:05 PM
25 ↗(On Diff #56441)

FWIW, I wasn't trying to ignore this part, just trying to keep the discussion about it on the other thread. Already replied there.

11 ↗(On Diff #56441)

Ok, leaving this sentence as-is unless better suggestions or stronger opinions come up. Thanks!

49 ↗(On Diff #56441)

I don't think there is a very useful way to avoid a report *privately* stating who that person recalls being present.

Their memory as relayed to tho committee is just that though: their memory. The committee is going to have to ask politely whether folks were involved or not. And even the discussion of who was involved, and any communication the committee does to them, *all* of that is (I think at least) clearly under the confidential and private clause. Not just from anyone, but even from the person who reported the issue. Until people give their express OK to have something said publicly, none of this should ever get shared.

Is that enough? (I genuinely don't know. I checked this some time ago with some folks from Europe, but I don't know how carefully they looked at this particular issue, or they may just not have concerns or thoughts about this.)

colinl added a comment.May 6 2016, 1:25 PM
This comment was removed by colinl.
rengolin added inline comments.May 6 2016, 1:41 PM
49 ↗(On Diff #56441)

From my experience in England, it is not enough to protect them from public discussions.

I had a few cases at my kids' school and workplaces (plural) where something wrong happened, I discussed with folks that I'd report via private whistle-blower policies, and they got *very* agitated and told me very convincingly to not mention their names in any instance.

Speaking to other people about this, it seems this is considered a severe breach of confidentiality. Since you're not their employer, this could even have legal complications. I would not go there if I were you.

I think the committee has to have access that it can, not that it thinks it needs. We really don't want to be breaching some people's individuality to protect other people's individuality.

chandlerc updated this revision to Diff 56456.May 6 2016, 1:49 PM

Further qualify one sentence based on suggestions from the llvm-dev thread.

Updating D13741: Introduce a *draft* of a code of conduct for the LLVM community and the

associated reporting guide.

Please find a comment inline about a choice of word that makes me uncomfortable.

I take the opportunity to say that while I don't personally feel the need for it, because I haven't personally witnessed that the community has not been welcoming, the simple fact that some people don't feel comfortable without making this explicit through a CoC is enough for me to fully support the initiative. Outside of the exact wording, I trust the community to refer to the CoC with discernment.

66 ↗(On Diff #56456)

Can you remove the word "Repeated" please?
Harassment is by definition *repeated* as far as I know, unless it is a US vs non-US thing?
A quick google search tends to comfort me in my view that other CoC I looked at are twisting the word by removing this (important IMO) component: : "any form of repeated behaviour intended to intimidate a person or make them feel unwelcome or uncomfortable" and "repeated interactions with a person after they have made it clear that further interaction is unwelcome" : the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions "to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way" and "to make *repeated* attacks against (an enemy)" "It is commonly understood as behaviour which disturbs or upsets, and it is characteristically repetitive" and " Sexual harassment refers to persistent and unwanted sexual advances"

Not having this characteristic implies that a one-time behavior that offend someone is considered as harassment, which I disagree with.

May I suggest an edition along these lines:

**Be careful in the words that you choose and be kind to others.** Do not
  insult or put down other participants. Exclusionary behavior aren't 
  acceptable. This includes, but is not limited to:

  * Violent threats or language directed against another person.
  * Discriminatory jokes and language.
  * Posting sexually explicit or violent material.
  * Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally identifying
    information ("doxing").
  * Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms.
  * Unwelcome sexual attention.
  * Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.

   In general, if someone asks you to stop, then stop. Persisting in such a 
   behavior after being asked to stop is considered harassment.
rengolin added inline comments.May 7 2016, 4:44 AM
66 ↗(On Diff #56456)


What about Arnaud's suggestion to add a TL;DR section? A lot of people agreed it was a good compromise.

probinson added inline comments.
44 ↗(On Diff #56456)

Heh. Or your own primary language. Also native speakers aren't necessarily perfect either. How about:
"Remember that we're a world-wide community, and while English is the lingua-franca of computer science, not everyone is fluent."

rengolin added inline comments.May 10 2016, 6:14 AM
44 ↗(On Diff #56456)

Good point. +1.

chandlerc added inline comments.May 10 2016, 9:41 AM
44 ↗(On Diff #56456)

I agree about this concept, but I'm not sure it fits here. This is about being considerate to others and there I think considering the fact that they may not be operating in their primary language is the most relevant.

We could try to work this into one of the other sections, but I'm not sure it is strictly necessary, as I think *all* of this is pretty clearly reflexive -- everything about "you" and "others" here applies in reverse equally often?

66 ↗(On Diff #56456)


FWIW, I think the intent of the 'repeated' was trying to intensify an aspect of this that perhaps some readers are less familiar with. But I think your wording is fine too.

chandlerc updated this revision to Diff 56745.May 10 2016, 10:12 AM

Update with fixes suggested, including adding a TOC-style list at the top based
on llvm-dev thread suggestions.

rengolin added inline comments.May 10 2016, 11:12 AM
45 ↗(On Diff #56745)

I think the point of the argument wasn't strictly semantics, but trying to be inclusive.

If you refer to "someone else's primary language" you're clearly referring to non-English speakers, and thus may be viewed as aiming the code at English speakers, maybe because they're majority, etc.

I'm not particularly fussed about this, though. If there was some better, short replacement I'd prefer, but if we double the paragraph in size, it'll get harder to understand, missing the point.

51–53 ↗(On Diff #56745)

I just read this again and I agree with @zturner, this is even weirder than the other anti-dodging paragraph. I don't think we can even enforce any of that outside the LLVM community... :(

I can certainly understand us trying to say to people how bad it is to misbehave outside the list/meetings, but if the code is wholly enforceable (by means of Reporting Guide and committee), then everything here has to be so...

I don't want to promote a split in even more parts, but if we move the "outside" argument to the TL;DR header, which is more of a guideline, people will take the hint.

The anti-dodging paragraph is already clear enough.

mehdi_amini accepted this revision.May 10 2016, 12:53 PM
mehdi_amini added a reviewer: mehdi_amini.

Since you ask for an "ack" on the mailing-list: LGTM, with some minor comments inline.
You probably want to wait for a lot more approval here before committing though... :)

96 ↗(On Diff #56745)

Is the short "err" intentional here?

117 ↗(On Diff #56745)

whould, if it is a proper word, it is not very common I think, you may want an alternative to be friendlier with non-native English speaker :)

122 ↗(On Diff #56745)

I'm a bit torn on this paragraph, looks like a "gag order" (you may be sanctioned in some way by a committee and forbid to discuss why with the community).

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.May 10 2016, 12:53 PM
chandlerc added inline comments.May 10 2016, 2:22 PM
45 ↗(On Diff #56745)

If people read this as referring to non-English speakers, I hope that would only be due to the communication in question happens to occur in English...

Anyways, I'm also not particularly fussed about this. If folks feel really strongly about this, I'm open to suggestions. Sadly, I don't quite think the previous suggestion captures it, and I would like to avoid trying to define one language or another as a "lingua-franca".

51–53 ↗(On Diff #56745)

My response to Zach was that this isn't actually about behavior outside the community spaces, but rather about behavior towards newcomers or external parties made within the LLVM spaces. So I don't think this is an "anti-dodging" anything... Not sure if that really addresses your concern though.

probinson added inline comments.May 10 2016, 4:14 PM
45 ↗(On Diff #56745)

Sorry, lingua franca is actually how I think of it, although it probably makes me sound snooty (blame my prep-school background). I admit it doesn't really belong here.
"Remember that we're a world-wide community, and while the common language of computer science is English, not everyone is fluent."

(I'm not sure what else to call it, unless you want to decree that English is the "official" language of LLVM projects.)

96 ↗(On Diff #56745)

"to err" is a real verb in English, meaning to make a mistake.

lhames added a subscriber: lhames.May 10 2016, 8:12 PM

Ack'ing the new revision as requested. This is looking really good. Thanks Chandler!

sanjoy accepted this revision.May 10 2016, 9:45 PM
sanjoy added a reviewer: sanjoy.
sanjoy added a subscriber: sanjoy.

This is looking great. I made a few nitpicks while reading, feel free to pick and choose.

31 ↗(On Diff #56745)

I'm not sure why "In addition" is needed? In addition to what else in the preceding paragraph?

55 ↗(On Diff #56745)

I'd prefer removing "when making decisions", since that looks like it is repeated.

85 ↗(On Diff #56745)

I'd s/a behavior/behavior/

92 ↗(On Diff #56745)

"we're diverse" seems more specific

36 ↗(On Diff #56745)

spelling: wish

46 ↗(On Diff #56745)

Nit: period at the end (or remove periods from all bullets)

60 ↗(On Diff #56745)

s/we/the advisory committee/ (or consistently refer to the committee as the first person)

jmolloy accepted this revision.May 11 2016, 5:10 AM
jmolloy added a reviewer: jmolloy.
jmolloy added a subscriber: jmolloy.

LGTM. I like the wording a lot now.

I've called out something in particular that I've wanted to highlight without being caught in the tidal wave of the other thread. It's just highlighting something, and doesn't need any change in the text.


56 ↗(On Diff #56745)

I'm glad this is mentioned. One of the major reasons I wouldn't want this CoC to enable wordsmithing like "Master" -> "Leader" is that the nuance between the two is slight, and people with a non-perfect grasp of English may not understand that nuance. Sticking to oft-used terms is considerate.

I hope there can be a self-deprecation exception, although it's not immediately obvious where to put it. If I refer to *myself* as having had a "senior moment" (which I did recently) I don't want some do-gooder hauling me up in front of the Conduct Committee for being age-ist.

Aside from that, no objection here.

aadg accepted this revision.May 11 2016, 2:34 PM
aadg added a reviewer: aadg.
aadg added a subscriber: aadg.


I think the wording is OK and this is a good base to start with.

I don't have strong feelings on the exact wording in the code of conduct, at least compared to others who have spoken up here.
I think the text looks reasonable, just like I think many alternative versions with small variations would look reasonable.
While I hadn't seen a strong need for a code of conduct when the topic came up initially, I've been convinced that for some, this makes a big difference. I don't see a major downside to having the code of conduct.
I'm happy with the proposed text.


lhames accepted this revision.May 12 2016, 5:35 PM
lhames added a reviewer: lhames.
jbcoe added a subscriber: jbcoe.Jun 30 2016, 12:29 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.