> -----Original Message----- > From: Dr D. Chisnall [mailto:dc...@hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of David > Chisnall > Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 1:48 AM > To: Renato Golin > Cc: Robinson, Paul; Daniel Berlin; llvm-dev; openmp-dev (openmp- > d...@lists.llvm.org); LLDB; cfe-...@lists.llvm.org; Rafael Espíndola > Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the > initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct > > On 4 Jul 2016, at 12:27, Renato Golin via Openmp-dev <openmp- > d...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On 4 July 2016 at 00:42, Robinson, Paul <paul.robin...@sony.com> wrote: > >> Daniel claimed it was not different, even though he proposed the text. > >> I think it is better, as "egregious" (even though it is qualitative) > >> helps identify what "rare" circumstances would come under the policy. > >> As a non-lawyer I do think it's different. > > > > I personally agree with you, both on helping identify "rare" (as what, > > not when), and for easing non-lawyers minds. > > The simplest solution would probably be to have a separate advisory > document listing informally examples of things that would and wouldn’t be > covered by the CoC. For example:
As Daniel pointed out, an enumeration like that knows no bounds, and starting a list invites endless what-if questions. That's why I settled for a more qualitative statement; we have to acknowledge that ultimately there's a judgement call on the part of the enforcement committee, but the wording as it was felt a little too wide-open for me. --paulr > > Stalking a member of the LLVM community: Covered. > > Inciting harassment of a member of the LLVM community in social media: > Covered > > Sending rude emails to a member of the LLVM community with whom you have a > relationship outside of the project: Probably not covered, unless it’s > directly related to LLVM > > Some example that people are worried would constitute overreach: Not > covered > > Some other examples that people are concerned must be covered: Covered > > This document would provide guidance for the CoC enforcement committee, > but would not be part of the official CoC. > > David _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
