The LLVM Code of Conduct sets standards for how the community interacts with each other and is enforced by a Code of Conduct committee. This committee follows publically disclosed reporting and response procedures. One of the requirements is to publish a transparency report of any incidents reported. These reports provide the community with transparency into if and how the Code of Conduct committee responds and resolves incidents.

The Code of Conduct Committee is a group of volunteers and LLVM Foundation board members who volunteer to handle Code of Conduct reports for the LLVM Project.For each report received, a sub-committee of members was selected to investigate. This is the transparency report for the period from April 15 - July 15, 2023.

Reports

The LLVM CoC Committee resolved 3 incident reports during this time period. If a report has been received but not resolved, it will not be reported here until resolved.

Report #1:
   The incident was reported on February 23, 2023. It was concluded that this was not a direct code of conduct violation, but contained some LLVM Developer policy violations and CoC concerns.

Report #2:
   The incident was reported on April 6, 2023. The report was concluded to violate the LLVM Code of Conduct, specifically the section - Be careful in the words that you choose and be kind to others.

Report #3:
   This report was received on June 30, 2023. This was not actually a CoC incident report, but a notification that a banned individual has been participating with an LLVM Mailman list which is a violation of their ban from the LLVM Project.

Resolutions

Report #1:
   Committing code on behalf of a banned individual was determined to not be a direct violation of the LLVM Code of Conduct for now. The CoC committee did determine that code not reviewed as indicated by the LLVM Developer policy is a violation of the developer policy.

Report #2:
   A username used on LLVM project infrastructure was determined to be in violation with the LLVM Code of Conduct. The CoC committee requested the user change their name and they did.

Report #3:
   While this was not a CoC report, the CoC committee made additional efforts to restrict LLVM mailing lists from the banned individual.

Report #1:
The Code of Conduct report we received stated that a LLVM project member had committed a patch for a banned individual and the reporter was wondering if this was a violation of the LLVM Code of Conduct.

The code of conduct sub committee met and discussed the following:

• Code contributions are more than just lines of code, but a social process that involves back and forth review between the author of the code and other individuals.
• As described in the LLVM Project’s developer policy - All code contributions must go through the public review process - currently Phabricator.
• As far as the committee can tell, there was no public review process for the code committed.
• Code may be privately reviewed before entering the public review process, but what is important is that it does not exclude public review.
• Public review is important for open source projects. Without it, it limits who can participate and contribute and also leaves out the history of why code decisions may have been made.
• By contributing code on someone’s behalf, you assume responsibility to follow the developer policy and any other project policies.
• Large patches may require more back and forth review with individuals and the author. This will not be possible with a banned individual.
• Leaders in the LLVM community are expected to respect the LLVM Code of Conduct. The optics of a leader engaging with a banned individual may not encourage others to engage with this leader.
• The LLVM Code of Conduct does not apply to a LLVM project member’s decision to privately interact with a banned individual.

The committee concluded the following:

• Committing code on behalf of a banned individual is not a direct violation of the LLVM Code of Conduct at this time. While not technically a violation, there is great concern regarding a Code Owner / Leader in our community choosing to act as a proxy for a banned individual. In this committee's opinion, acting as a proxy for a banned individual is not at all within the spirit of the LLVM Code of Conduct.
• Committing patches with public review not using LLVM’s review tools (Phabricator) is against the LLVM Developers’ Policy. All patches must be reviewed according to the LLVM Developers’ Policy - Public review on Phabricator
• While this was not found to be the case with this incident, LLVM Project members should not be a proxy for communication between banned individuals and the LLVM Project as this is a violation of the ban. If code is accepted from a banned individual, the code is now the responsibility of the submitter and it is their job to respond to review questions or comments.

Report #2:
On April 6, 2023, a Code of Conduct complaint was filed regarding a specific username being used on LLVM infrastructure. The CoC determined that the username was a slang term that was derogatory to women and violated the section - Be careful in the words that you choose and be kind to others. The user was asked to change their username and they quickly did as they were not aware of this slang term.

Report #3:
On June 27, a code of conduct report was received that notified the committee that a banned individual was attempting to use LLVM mailing lists. As part of their ban, this individual is not allowed to participate with the LLVM project in any way - including LLVM Mailman lists. Administrators updated the Mailman list settings and further measures are being considered.