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

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:02 AM Bill Kelly via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Tanya Lattner wrote:
> >> On Oct 13, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Bill Kelly via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote:
> >>> On 13 October 2015 at 17:16, Kuperstein, Michael M via
llvm-dev
> >>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>>> The FreeBSD CoC is, IMHO, much better in this respect (
> https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html ).
> >>> Nice! This is so succinct and beautiful!
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't need an overseeing foundation to take opaque
decisions, and
> >>> focus on what's really important: the code.
> >>>
> >>> I particularly like "Do not make it personal. Do not take
it
> >>> personally.". It means *so* much in such a short
sentence.
> >>
> >> Agreed!
> >
> > No offense to the FreeBSD CoC, but I really dislike the line
> > “Do not take it personally”. Quite often when someone is offended,
> > the offender will justify their statements by saying “You are just
> > taking it personally”. I find this frequently used towards women
> > (not saying this community necessarily).
>
> I'd agree, "Do not take it personally" could in certain
elocutions
> come off as vaguely patronizing.  But I think it does hint at a core
> concept, which the late Christopher Hitchens expressed as follows:
>
>   When someone says "that's offensive" I respond
"I'm still waiting
>   to hear your argument."
>
> I would hope to see the above enshrined as a core sentiment in any
> Code of Conduct purporting to address speech on the Internet.
>
The LLVM community is not the Internet at large and need not be. I think
there are many good forums for uncensored debate of controversial and
sensitive topics, but I do *not* think that this particular open source
software project is such a forum. This is a community for technical
discussion about rather mundane and boring topics such as compilers and
software.

As such, I think we can and should (and have historically for all of the
near decade I have interacted with this community) prioritize differently.
We should be polite and respectful, and insist upon that from others.

The correct response to someone on an LLVM forum telling you "that's
offensive" is some variation on "I'm sorry" and your very
best attempt
change how you are communicating to avoid repeating the incident.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151014/0fae4957/attachment.html>

On 14 Oct 2015 10:29 a.m., "Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev" <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> The correct response to someone on an LLVM forum telling you
"that's
offensive" is some variation on "I'm sorry" and your very
best attempt
change how you are communicating to avoid repeating the incident.

+1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151014/fb6bcef2/attachment.html>

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 09:29:01AM +0000, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
wrote:
> The correct response to someone on an LLVM forum telling you
"that's
> offensive" is some variation on "I'm sorry" and your
very best attempt
> change how you are communicating to avoid repeating the incident.
That depends. Given the multi-cultural nature of the list, I find
"why?"
to be just as good in many situations. I nfact, the second and third
part of the statement only make sense after the "why" is understood.

Joerg

On 10/14/2015 4:29 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
wrote:
> The LLVM community is not the Internet at large and need not be. I think
> there are many good forums for uncensored debate of controversial and
> sensitive topics, but I do *not* think that this particular open source
> software project is such a forum. This is a community for technical
> discussion about rather mundane and boring topics such as compilers and
> software.
Is there an ongoing problem with the types of discussions on this, and 
other LLVM-related lists?
What problem is the proposed CoC trying to solve?

-Krzysztof

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation

Am 14.10.2015 um 14:57 schrieb Krzysztof Parzyszek via
llvm-dev:
> Is there an ongoing problem with the types of discussions on this, and
> other LLVM-related lists?
Not currently.
> What problem is the proposed CoC trying to solve?
Stop possible future harrassment before it can happen.

It's a legitimate concern actually.

On 14 October 2015 at 13:15, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> That depends. Given the multi-cultural nature of the list, I find
"why?"
> to be just as good in many situations. I nfact, the second and third
> part of the statement only make sense after the "why" is
understood.
As someone who often offends people without intention, I can
understand your point of view, and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

However, I found that it doesn't hurt to say sorry *first*, because in
fact, I *am* sorry for unintentionally offending someone. And it goes
a long way in making the offended person listen to *your* concerns.
Being offended is an emotional response, and until you can bring
people back to the logical realm, nothing you say will work.

The second part of your argument is more important, I think, and I
didn't convey correctly when I completely agree with Chandler's
statement. Unlike a lot of people here, it seems, I don't think every
offended person has the right to force the offender to "stop",
regardless of what happened. Understanding why is fundamental to keep
the correct level of respect and understanding, and I think that's why
later on Chandler reinforced the idea of "mediating", not
"punishing",
which I agree it's the correct approach, IFF it works both ways.

But understanding why and mediating conflicts, I strongly believe,
must be done off list. With or without the committee's help.

cheers,
--renato