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

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:23 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> > From: "Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>
> > Some back story here. I have gotten many requests through email and
> > at the developer meetings about having a Code of Conduct and
> > specifically having one for LLVM Developer Meetings. It has been
> > discussed at many of the LLVM socials as well. I can see in
> > hindsight this might appear to be coming out of nowhere for some,
> > but it really is coming from a need we (the board) heard from the
> > community.
>
> This is very useful information. Can you summarize the motivations of
> those making the requests (anonymized, of course)? It seems odd that
> someone would ask about a 'Code of Conduct' without some particular
> impetus, and we obviously want to make sure that we're addressing the
> specific requirements that have come up. What information was being sought?
>
In fact, I'm not aware of these requests being tied to any particular
impetus. While that seems strange to you, it is not uncommon.

The industry at large has hit a large number of specific issues over the
past few years that have provide (IMO) ample motivation for setting
reasonable guidelines in place *before* there is a specific impetus. I
don't think there is any reason to be surprised that several people within
the community would notice the lack of a code of conduct and wish it
existed. I had noted the lack, and I very much wished it existed, but
without any specific impetus.

Now, a reasonable question is "does this address the concerns of those who
have voiced them". I don't want to speak for Tanya, but I have heard
confirmation from all of those that I have heard express such a concern
that what is being proposed addresses their concerns. (Not to say that it
is perfect, just that it appears to be sufficient.)

-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/a3a90c69/attachment.html>

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:23 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>
wrote:
>
>> > From: "Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>
>
>
>> > Some back story here. I have gotten many requests through email
and
>> > at the developer meetings about having a Code of Conduct and
>> > specifically having one for LLVM Developer Meetings. It has been
>> > discussed at many of the LLVM socials as well. I can see in
>> > hindsight this might appear to be coming out of nowhere for some,
>> > but it really is coming from a need we (the board) heard from the
>> > community.
>>
>> This is very useful information. Can you summarize the motivations of
>> those making the requests (anonymized, of course)? It seems odd that
>> someone would ask about a 'Code of Conduct' without some
particular
>> impetus, and we obviously want to make sure that we're addressing
the
>> specific requirements that have come up. What information was being
sought?
>>
>
> In fact, I'm not aware of these requests being tied to any particular
> impetus. While that seems strange to you, it is not uncommon.
>
I was also wondering about this. For example, was the motivation that there
have been some ad hominem attacks rather than technical discussion?

>
> The industry at large has hit a large number of specific issues over the
> past few years that have provide (IMO) ample motivation for setting
> reasonable guidelines in place *before* there is a specific impetus. I
> don't think there is any reason to be surprised that several people
within
> the community would notice the lack of a code of conduct and wish it
> existed. I had noted the lack, and I very much wished it existed, but
> without any specific impetus.
>
> Now, a reasonable question is "does this address the concerns of those
who
> have voiced them". I don't want to speak for Tanya, but I have
heard
> confirmation from all of those that I have heard express such a concern
> that what is being proposed addresses their concerns. (Not to say that it
> is perfect, just that it appears to be sufficient.)
>
You mentioned suggestions or improvements; would you, or the Foundation,
consider modifying the CoC? I ask because it seems there seems to be some
contention among the community about the phrasing of various sections.

>
> -Chandler
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/bf00b229/attachment-0001.html>

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:32 PM Nathan Wilson <nwilson20 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:23 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>
wrote:
>>
>>> > From: "Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> > Some back story here. I have gotten many requests through
email and
>>> > at the developer meetings about having a Code of Conduct and
>>> > specifically having one for LLVM Developer Meetings. It has
been
>>> > discussed at many of the LLVM socials as well. I can see in
>>> > hindsight this might appear to be coming out of nowhere for
some,
>>> > but it really is coming from a need we (the board) heard from
the
>>> > community.
>>>
>>> This is very useful information. Can you summarize the motivations
of
>>> those making the requests (anonymized, of course)? It seems odd
that
>>> someone would ask about a 'Code of Conduct' without some
particular
>>> impetus, and we obviously want to make sure that we're
addressing the
>>> specific requirements that have come up. What information was being
sought?
>>>
>>
>> In fact, I'm not aware of these requests being tied to any
particular
>> impetus. While that seems strange to you, it is not uncommon.
>>
>
> I was also wondering about this. For example, was the motivation that
> there have been some ad hominem attacks rather than technical discussion?
>
As I just said, I'm not aware of any *specific* events that were the
motivation. We have certainly had arguments get off the rails in the past,
and have had to correct them, but I don't think there is any specific ones
that were motivating this discussion.

The motivations I am aware of I wrote in my reply to Hal.

>
>
>>
>> The industry at large has hit a large number of specific issues over
the
>> past few years that have provide (IMO) ample motivation for setting
>> reasonable guidelines in place *before* there is a specific impetus. I
>> don't think there is any reason to be surprised that several people
within
>> the community would notice the lack of a code of conduct and wish it
>> existed. I had noted the lack, and I very much wished it existed, but
>> without any specific impetus.
>>
>> Now, a reasonable question is "does this address the concerns of
those
>> who have voiced them". I don't want to speak for Tanya, but I
have heard
>> confirmation from all of those that I have heard express such a concern
>> that what is being proposed addresses their concerns. (Not to say that
it
>> is perfect, just that it appears to be sufficient.)
>>
>
> You mentioned suggestions or improvements; would you, or the Foundation,
> consider modifying the CoC? I ask because it seems there seems to be some
> contention among the community about the phrasing of various sections.
>
Consider? Absolutely. In the draft I'm keeping, I have already applied
several excellent suggestions from this thread. I expect there will be more.

I will send out a fresh draft tomorrow (maybe tonight?) with a summary of
the changes and the overarching comments. This will be a new thread, etc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151014/1a0c46cf/attachment.html>

On 14 Oct 2015 12:43 a.m., "Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev" <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Now, a reasonable question is "does this address the concerns of those
who have voiced them". I don't want to speak for Tanya, but I have
heard
confirmation from all of those that I have heard express such a concern
that what is being proposed addresses their concerns. (Not to say that it
is perfect, just that it appears to be sufficient.)

Enough people in the community strongly agree with the idea of a CoC, and
that's already reason enough.

I don't see how it matters who asked it first, or what their intentions
were.

Cheers,
Renato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151014/cbba587b/attachment.html>

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 4:43 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:23 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov
<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:
> > From: "Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
>  
> > Some back story here. I have gotten many requests through email and
> > at the developer meetings about having a Code of Conduct and
> > specifically having one for LLVM Developer Meetings. It has been
> > discussed at many of the LLVM socials as well. I can see in
> > hindsight this might appear to be coming out of nowhere for some,
> > but it really is coming from a need we (the board) heard from the
> > community.
> 
> This is very useful information. Can you summarize the motivations of those
making the requests (anonymized, of course)? It seems odd that someone would ask
about a 'Code of Conduct' without some particular impetus, and we
obviously want to make sure that we're addressing the specific requirements
that have come up. What information was being sought?
> 
> In fact, I'm not aware of these requests being tied to any particular
impetus. While that seems strange to you, it is not uncommon.
> 
> The industry at large has hit a large number of specific issues over the
past few years that have provide (IMO) ample motivation for setting reasonable
guidelines in place *before* there is a specific impetus. I don't think
there is any reason to be surprised that several people within the community
would notice the lack of a code of conduct and wish it existed. I had noted the
lack, and I very much wished it existed, but without any specific impetus.
> 
> Now, a reasonable question is "does this address the concerns of those
who have voiced them". I don't want to speak for Tanya, but I have
heard confirmation from all of those that I have heard express such a concern
that what is being proposed addresses their concerns. (Not to say that it is
perfect, just that it appears to be sufficient.)
> 
Yes, Chandler summed up some of the reasons well. 

Related specifically to the developers meeting, we are growing quite rapidly.
For the past few years, we have been increasing our attendance from 50 at the
start to now over 350 attendees. With this many people (and many new to the
community), it seems important to have a code of conduct to refer to and
possibly *prevent* any incidents from happening. And for some people (not sure
exact percentage), it makes them feel more comfortable attending a conference
that has a code of conduct.

-Tanya
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151014/e2ac4661/attachment.html>

On 14 October 2015 at 20:35, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Related specifically to the developers meeting, we are growing quite
> rapidly. For the past few years, we have been increasing our attendance
from
> 50 at the start to now over 350 attendees. With this many people (and many
> new to the community), it seems important to have a code of conduct to
refer
> to and possibly *prevent* any incidents from happening. And for some people
> (not sure exact percentage), it makes them feel more comfortable attending
a
> conference that has a code of conduct.
Just an honest and simple question: would it make sense to have a
different code of conduct for meetings and the rest?

I know it sounds like a bad idea, but my rationale is that maybe this
would at least solve some of the points that socially inept people
feel pressure on the current proposal.

Because the consequences of a physical meeting can be a lot tougher
than any electronic one, and because timing is of the essence, the
wording *has* to be stronger and an executive decision has to be
implemented.

But such strong wording and harsh unappealable consequences do make
us, of the anti-social variety, very frightened. We grew in a world
that never made sense, and we have suffered our childhoods and
adulthoods in constant fear of irrational (to our minds) reprimands.
This is not a simple matter, it's quite real and have made me
seriously consider many times leaving the open source realm for good.
I have left jobs and regressed in my career because of things like
that.
>From the very wording in the proposed CoC, we don't want to leave
anyone behind, including physical and mental disabilities. If that's
true, and we really mean it, than imposing such a harsh CoC from the
majority of opinions is exactly the opposite of that. People like me
are clearly not the majority, the NAS UK estimates 1 every 100 people
in England has some form of autism, but that's the whole point of a
CoC, is to not forget about the people with some form of fragility.

By the replies I've seen so far, there were others that feel the same
way, and I wonder if they're also feeling a little uncomfortable with
the wording.

Disclaimer: This is not personal nor an accusation, I know you
wouldn't do anything to upset anyone. I'm just trying to solve a
problem that I can see people have, but can't express without looking
rude. I'm *really* sorry, but we just sound rude, we're not really,
and I do appreciate when people remind me if I slip up.

Just my two cents.

cheers,
--renato