llvm dev - Oct 2015 - RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On 13 October 2015 at 16:41, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
wrote:
>> - *Be welcoming.* We strive to be a community that welcomes and
supports
>> people of all backgrounds and identities. This includes, but is not
limited
>> to members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, colour,
>> immigration status, social and economic class, educational level, sex,
>> sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size, family
>> status, political belief, religion
>
> How about "religion or lack thereof"? I know it can be understood
to
> be implicit, but as an atheist I tend feel a bit left out of
> statements like that.
+1!!!!

Well, since we're being picky... :D

race: last time I checked, we're all members of the same race, homo
sapiens sapiens.
national origin vs. immigration status: the former is already covered
by "culture" for everything that matters, the latter is very specific
to one culture.
social "class": this is too Marxist*, we should use "social
status",
since everything is blurred nowadays.
family status: really?!
sexual orientation vs. sex vs gender identity and expression: what?!
size: really? is this the PC version of "weight"?

* I don't mean "socialist", nor "communist", but I mean
the strict
division of classes.

cheers,
--renato

PS: I hope you all understand that I mean no offence. I may have to
put that as my signature from now on, though, or risk being kicked out
without notice... :)

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 13 October 2015 at 16:41, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> - *Be welcoming.* We strive to be a community that welcomes and
supports
>>> people of all backgrounds and identities. This includes, but is not
limited
>>> to members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin,
colour,
>>> immigration status, social and economic class, educational level,
sex,
>>> sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size,
family
>>> status, political belief, religion
>>
>> How about "religion or lack thereof"? I know it can be
understood to
>> be implicit, but as an atheist I tend feel a bit left out of
>> statements like that.
>
> +1!!!!
>
> Well, since we're being picky... :D
>
> race: last time I checked, we're all members of the same race, homo
> sapiens sapiens.
> national origin vs. immigration status: the former is already covered
> by "culture" for everything that matters, the latter is very
specific
> to one culture.
> social "class": this is too Marxist*, we should use "social
status",
> since everything is blurred nowadays.
> family status: really?!
> sexual orientation vs. sex vs gender identity and expression: what?!
sexual orientation != sex != gender identity and expression, so
personally, I am in favor of this (though I feel like sex could be
dropped due to the gender identity clause).
> size: really? is this the PC version of "weight"?
>
> * I don't mean "socialist", nor "communist", but I
mean the strict
> division of classes.
>
> cheers,
> --renato
>
> PS: I hope you all understand that I mean no offence. I may have to
> put that as my signature from now on, though, or risk being kicked out
> without notice... :)
lol

~Aaron
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On 13 October 2015 at 17:35, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>
wrote:
> sexual orientation != sex != gender identity and expression, so
> personally, I am in favor of this (though I feel like sex could be
> dropped due to the gender identity clause).
Are we going to list every possible choice human beings can take in
their own lives and list them? If so, we'll need a much bigger
Internet to hold our small web page.

And why some topics have more nuances than others? Because that's a
very specific list for a very specific country where people take
everything everyone says literally.

If sexuality and immigration are more important than culture and
education in that one specific country, why would such an
international community guidelines have to carry that bias?

So, we can either solve it by removing the whole phrase starting with
"This includes, but is not limited to", or we can list every possible
discrimination that has ever happened and could ever happen in the
future. I vote for the former solution throughout the document. We're
not children nor lawyers.

cheers,
--renato

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:35:07PM -0400, Aaron Ballman via llvm-dev
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > On 13 October 2015 at 16:41, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>> - *Be welcoming.* We strive to be a community that welcomes
and supports
> >>> people of all backgrounds and identities. This includes, but
is not limited
> >>> to members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin,
colour,
> >>> immigration status, social and economic class, educational
level, sex,
> >>> sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size,
family
> >>> status, political belief, religion
> >>
> >> How about "religion or lack thereof"? I know it can be
understood to
> >> be implicit, but as an atheist I tend feel a bit left out of
> >> statements like that.
> >
> > +1!!!!
> >
> > Well, since we're being picky... :D
> >
> > race: last time I checked, we're all members of the same race,
homo
> > sapiens sapiens.
> > national origin vs. immigration status: the former is already covered
> > by "culture" for everything that matters, the latter is very
specific
> > to one culture.
> > social "class": this is too Marxist*, we should use
"social status",
> > since everything is blurred nowadays.
> > family status: really?!
> > sexual orientation vs. sex vs gender identity and expression: what?!
> 
> sexual orientation != sex != gender identity and expression, so
> personally, I am in favor of this (though I feel like sex could be
> dropped due to the gender identity clause).
Hi Aaron,
Over the years, these definitions have been in flux.

My current understanding is sexual orientation refers to the concepts of being
celibate or heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual. Gender identity refers to a
continuous spectrum of conditions relating to one's perception of being male
or
female or somewhere in between those two ends of the gender spectrum. And so I
believe sexual orientation and gender identity are distinct concepts without any
connotation of redundancy associated with them.

One point that is very often misunderstood by the general population is that
sexual orientation is referenced to the individual's gender identity. In
real
life, that can be confusing.

For another point of view, see:
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-terminology-and-definitions

Adapt and thrive,
Karen
> 
> > size: really? is this the PC version of "weight"?
> >
> > * I don't mean "socialist", nor "communist",
but I mean the strict
> > division of classes.
> >
> > cheers,
> > --renato
> >
> > PS: I hope you all understand that I mean no offence. I may have to
> > put that as my signature from now on, though, or risk being kicked out
> > without notice... :)
> 
> lol
> 
> ~Aaron
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
--- end quoted text ---

-- 
Karen Shaeffer                 Be aware: If you see an obstacle in your path,
Neuralscape Services           that obstacle is your path.        Zen proverb