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

Greetings all,

First off, thanks to everyone who contributed to the initial discussion
thread. Judging by the responses from that thread, there seems to pretty
broad interest in pursuing this. There also seem to be a few concerns. =]
I'm including an updated draft based on the feedback, and I'll also try
to
break down the major points I've seen of discussion. Sorry for the long
email, but I suspect it is much shorter than trying to read through the
entire thread.


High level points about a code of conduct in general:

- Is this trying to change how the community behaves? I think the
resounding answer is no, this is very much meant to formalize the existing
extremely polite and respectful behavior that the LLVM community has had
for many years.

- Was this proposed in response to some particular event or problem? No.
There has been mounting pressure throughout the industry and even within
our community to take a step like this. There is a particular desire by
many to have a code of conduct governing the developer's meeting.

- Is this necessary? Has this ever come up in the community? Many people
have expressed the view that some form of code of conduct is important
and/or necessary. Chris has pointed out that there have been incidents that
necessitated the degree of response outlined in this at least once in the
past, but it was *many* years ago.

- Why is this important? There is a tremendous amount of information online
about why having these types of rules makes a huge difference for people
who may feel unsafe in our community or conference. These range from
advocacy from groups like the Ada Initiative[1] to powerful accounts of how
these issues and related issues can negatively impact individuals in
communities[2][3]. These may not apply to you personally, but they do apply
to both current and potential future members of our community.

[1]: http://adainitiative.org/
[2]:
http://www.perpendicularangel.com/2015/08/no-i-dont-trust-your-conference-without-a-code-of-conduct/
[3]: http://sarah.thesharps.us/2015/10/06/what-makes-a-good-community/


More specific points about the proposed wording:

- Why enumerate specifics in the code of conduct? While some people do not
need any specific examples, others benefit significantly from them. In
minor cases, these examples can serve as reminders for well intending
members of the community. But to understand the major reasons, consider
someone who is seriously concerned about whether they will be safe and
respected in the community. These people do exist, both already in our
community and as potential newcomers (see the links above). You may not be
one of them, but try to empathize. These people can look to a list of
explicitly called out unacceptable behavior, find many of their concerns
already addressed, and learn that they will indeed be safe and welcome. For
groups and behaviors where this is a long standing and widespread problem
*for them*, this can be the difference between joining a community and not
joining. To read more details about this, I continue to refer to this
article from the Ada Initiative:
http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/

- Why use this specific wording? What about something much less verbose?
Some of this is really the previous point in another form. However, there
are reasons why I think this wording is a really good choice for the
community even compared to other wording options. One, I have seen few that
are meaningfully less verbose and still address the specifics. Two, this
wording is *really* widely used. While I looked to and cited the Django
Project, they are not alone. Here are some of the places using roughly the
same core wording:

http://couchdb.apache.org/conduct.html
http://apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html
http://opensource.box.com/code-of-conduct/
https://github.com/twitter/code-of-conduct/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md
https://code.facebook.com/pages/876921332402685

That includes the Apache Foundation, Twitter, and Facebook among others.
Several of these are based upon the template created by the
http://todogroup.com/ organization which is extremely similar, but a bit
longer than what is proposed here. So I believe that the core body of the
wording has a really strong position in the larger industry and open source
community.

Naturally, the surrounding wording that gives the important context
relevant for the *LLVM* community is and needs to be customized. But I have
seen very few concerns about these parts of the text.

- Do we need the degree of specificity with the "reporting guide"? See
the
discussion about specificity in general -- much of the same applies. Part
of what the code of conduct needs to do to effectively make people feel
safe is to advertise that we *will* actually act on issues when they come
up. Again, this is nothing new to the community; we have asked people to
correct their behavior before, and as Chris has pointed out even removed
them from the community's forums in extreme cases.


Issues around the specific people and process surrounding the advisory
committee: We frankly don't have this sorted out yet. Clearly, we need to
sort it out before this can be fully effective. I think we can make
progress on converging on the code of conduct and the reporting guide, and
then iterate on what the advisory committee looks like.


I am sure I have missed some points in all of this, and for that I'm sorry.
However, I am intentionally not going to engage in some of the very off
topic discussions. For example, there was some excellent discussion about
the Foundation itself. That feedback was I think well received and will be
acted upon. I would expect updates and further discussion there in separate
threads though.


I've also sent out a patch which would add these documents to the tree, but
with them clearly marked as *drafts*: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741 This
is based on the excellent suggestion by Philip. Please only make editorial
and structural comments there, we should keep the vast majority of the
content discussion here. To that end, the drafts are copied inline at the
bottom.

Thanks,
-Chandler
---------

=============================LLVM Community Code of Conduct
=============================
.. note::

   This document is currently a **DRAFT** document while it is being
discussed
   by the community.

We want to ensure that the LLVM community, while large and diverse, remains
welcoming and respectful to all participants. To that end, we have a few
ground
rules that we ask people to adhere to.

This isn’t an exhaustive list of things that you can’t do. Rather, take it
in
the spirit in which it’s intended - a guide to make it easier to communicate
and participate in the community.

This code of conduct applies to all spaces managed by the LLVM project or
The
LLVM Foundation. This includes IRC channels, mailing lists, bug trackers,
LLVM
events such as the developer meetings and socials, and any other forums
created
by the project that the community uses for communication. It applies to all
of
your communication and conduct in these spaces, including emails, chats,
things
you say, slides, videos, posters, signs, or even t-shirts you display in
these
spaces. In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect
a person's ability to participate within them.

If you believe someone is violating the code of conduct, we ask that you
report
it by emailing conduct at llvm.org. For more details please see our
:doc:`Reporting Guide <ReportingGuide>`.

* **Be friendly and patient.**

* **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 or lack thereof, and mental and physical
ability.

* **Be considerate.** Your work will be used by other people, and you in
turn
  will depend on the work of others. Any decision you take will affect users
  and colleagues, and you should take those consequences into account when
  making decisions. Remember that we're a world-wide community, so you might
  not be communicating in someone else's primary language.

* **Be respectful.** Not all of us will agree all the time, but
disagreement is
  no excuse for poor behavior and poor manners. We might all experience some
  frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn
into
  a personal attack. It’s important to remember that a community where
people
  feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. Members of the
LLVM
  community should be respectful when dealing with other members as well as
  with people outside the LLVM community.

* **Be careful in the words that you choose.** We are a community of
  professionals, and we conduct ourselves professionally. Be kind to
others. Do
  not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and other
exclusionary
  behavior aren't acceptable. This includes, but is not limited to:

  * Violent threats or language directed against another person.
  * Discriminatory jokes and language.
  * Posting sexually explicit or violent material.
  * Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally identifying
    information ("doxing").
  * Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms.
  * Unwelcome sexual attention.
  * Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.
  * Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to stop,
    then stop.

* **When we disagree, try to understand why.** Disagreements, both social
and
  technical, happen all the time and LLVM is no exception. It is important
that
  we resolve disagreements and differing views constructively. Remember that
  we’re different. The strength of LLVM comes from its varied community,
people
  from a wide range of backgrounds. Different people have different
  perspectives on issues. Being unable to understand why someone holds
  a viewpoint doesn’t mean that they’re wrong. Don’t forget that it is
human to
  err and blaming each other doesn’t get us anywhere. Instead, focus on
helping
  to resolve issues and learning from mistakes.

Questions?
=========
If you have questions, please feel free to contact the LLVM Foundation Code
of
Conduct Advisory Committee by emailing conduct at llvm.org.


(This text is based on the `Django Project`_ Code of Conduct, which is in
turn
based on wording from the `Speak Up! project`_.)

.. _Django Project: https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/
.. _Speak Up! project: http://speakup.io/coc.html


-------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151014/5b0b6d25/attachment.html>

> - Is this trying to change how the community behaves? I think the
resounding
> answer is no, this is very much meant to formalize the existing extremely
> polite and respectful behavior that the LLVM community has had for many
> years.
This is crucial IMHO as I am very happy with the current community.
Can it be included in the code of conduct itself? It is not clear from
the current wording.

Cheers,
Rafael

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:50 PM Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at
gmail.com>
wrote:
> > - Is this trying to change how the community behaves? I think the
> resounding
> > answer is no, this is very much meant to formalize the existing
extremely
> > polite and respectful behavior that the LLVM community has had for
many
> > years.
>
> This is crucial IMHO as I am very happy with the current community.
> Can it be included in the code of conduct itself?

I don't think it makes sense for a document to say directly that it
isn't
trying to change anything. Once it exists, there is no change to speak of?

> It is not clear from
> the current wording.
>
Hrm, I'm not sure how to make it more clear. I think the best way is to get
the wording to align with the general expectations of the community. Do you
have specific things that would help there? Here is my best idea:

It already states "We want to ensure that the LLVM community, while large
and diverse, remains welcoming and respectful to all participants." which
is trying to get at what you are saying Rafael with the "remains". But
I
could imagine rewording it to make this more obvious like so:

"The LLVM community has always worked to be a welcoming and respectful
community, and we want to ensure that doesn't change as we grow larger and
more diverse."

Better word smithing of this would be very welcome!
-Chandler


>
> Cheers,
> Rafael
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151014/d0592b14/attachment.html>

I very much like that second draft !

 
> Remember that we're a world-wide community, so you might not be
communicating in someone else's primary language.
 

While there, it might be worth stating as well the “someone else” may also be in
a different timezone (or just travelling), and a lack of immediate
answer/feedback does not necessarily imply lack of thoughtfulness.

 

Cheers,

Arnaud

 

 

From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Chandler
Carruth via llvm-dev
Sent: 14 October 2015 22:36
To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: [llvm-dev] RFC: Second draft of an LLVM Community Code of Conduct

 

Greetings all,

 

First off, thanks to everyone who contributed to the initial discussion thread.
Judging by the responses from that thread, there seems to pretty broad interest
in pursuing this. There also seem to be a few concerns. =] I'm including an
updated draft based on the feedback, and I'll also try to break down the
major points I've seen of discussion. Sorry for the long email, but I
suspect it is much shorter than trying to read through the entire thread.

 

 

High level points about a code of conduct in general:

 

- Is this trying to change how the community behaves? I think the resounding
answer is no, this is very much meant to formalize the existing extremely polite
and respectful behavior that the LLVM community has had for many years.

 

- Was this proposed in response to some particular event or problem? No. There
has been mounting pressure throughout the industry and even within our community
to take a step like this. There is a particular desire by many to have a code of
conduct governing the developer's meeting.

 

- Is this necessary? Has this ever come up in the community? Many people have
expressed the view that some form of code of conduct is important and/or
necessary. Chris has pointed out that there have been incidents that
necessitated the degree of response outlined in this at least once in the past,
but it was *many* years ago.

 

- Why is this important? There is a tremendous amount of information online
about why having these types of rules makes a huge difference for people who may
feel unsafe in our community or conference. These range from advocacy from
groups like the Ada Initiative[1] to powerful accounts of how these issues and
related issues can negatively impact individuals in communities[2][3]. These may
not apply to you personally, but they do apply to both current and potential
future members of our community.

 

[1]: http://adainitiative.org/

[2]:
http://www.perpendicularangel.com/2015/08/no-i-dont-trust-your-conference-without-a-code-of-conduct/

[3]: http://sarah.thesharps.us/2015/10/06/what-makes-a-good-community/

 

 

More specific points about the proposed wording:

 

- Why enumerate specifics in the code of conduct? While some people do not need
any specific examples, others benefit significantly from them. In minor cases,
these examples can serve as reminders for well intending members of the
community. But to understand the major reasons, consider someone who is
seriously concerned about whether they will be safe and respected in the
community. These people do exist, both already in our community and as potential
newcomers (see the links above). You may not be one of them, but try to
empathize. These people can look to a list of explicitly called out unacceptable
behavior, find many of their concerns already addressed, and learn that they
will indeed be safe and welcome. For groups and behaviors where this is a long
standing and widespread problem *for them*, this can be the difference between
joining a community and not joining. To read more details about this, I continue
to refer to this article from the Ada Initiative:

http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/

 

- Why use this specific wording? What about something much less verbose? Some of
this is really the previous point in another form. However, there are reasons
why I think this wording is a really good choice for the community even compared
to other wording options. One, I have seen few that are meaningfully less
verbose and still address the specifics. Two, this wording is *really* widely
used. While I looked to and cited the Django Project, they are not alone. Here
are some of the places using roughly the same core wording:

 

http://couchdb.apache.org/conduct.html

http://apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html

http://opensource.box.com/code-of-conduct/

https://github.com/twitter/code-of-conduct/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md

https://code.facebook.com/pages/876921332402685

 

That includes the Apache Foundation, Twitter, and Facebook among others. Several
of these are based upon the template created by the http://todogroup.com/
organization which is extremely similar, but a bit longer than what is proposed
here. So I believe that the core body of the wording has a really strong
position in the larger industry and open source community.

 

Naturally, the surrounding wording that gives the important context relevant for
the *LLVM* community is and needs to be customized. But I have seen very few
concerns about these parts of the text.

 

- Do we need the degree of specificity with the "reporting guide"? See
the discussion about specificity in general -- much of the same applies. Part of
what the code of conduct needs to do to effectively make people feel safe is to
advertise that we *will* actually act on issues when they come up. Again, this
is nothing new to the community; we have asked people to correct their behavior
before, and as Chris has pointed out even removed them from the community's
forums in extreme cases.

 

 

Issues around the specific people and process surrounding the advisory
committee: We frankly don't have this sorted out yet. Clearly, we need to
sort it out before this can be fully effective. I think we can make progress on
converging on the code of conduct and the reporting guide, and then iterate on
what the advisory committee looks like.

 

 

I am sure I have missed some points in all of this, and for that I'm sorry.
However, I am intentionally not going to engage in some of the very off topic
discussions. For example, there was some excellent discussion about the
Foundation itself. That feedback was I think well received and will be acted
upon. I would expect updates and further discussion there in separate threads
though.

 

 

I've also sent out a patch which would add these documents to the tree, but
with them clearly marked as *drafts*: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741 This is
based on the excellent suggestion by Philip. Please only make editorial and
structural comments there, we should keep the vast majority of the content
discussion here. To that end, the drafts are copied inline at the bottom.

 

Thanks,

-Chandler

---------

 

=============================
LLVM Community Code of Conduct

=============================
 

.. note::

 

   This document is currently a **DRAFT** document while it is being discussed

   by the community.

 

We want to ensure that the LLVM community, while large and diverse, remains

welcoming and respectful to all participants. To that end, we have a few ground

rules that we ask people to adhere to.

 

This isn’t an exhaustive list of things that you can’t do. Rather, take it in

the spirit in which it’s intended - a guide to make it easier to communicate

and participate in the community.

 

This code of conduct applies to all spaces managed by the LLVM project or The

LLVM Foundation. This includes IRC channels, mailing lists, bug trackers, LLVM

events such as the developer meetings and socials, and any other forums created

by the project that the community uses for communication. It applies to all of

your communication and conduct in these spaces, including emails, chats, things

you say, slides, videos, posters, signs, or even t-shirts you display in these

spaces. In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect

a person's ability to participate within them.

 

If you believe someone is violating the code of conduct, we ask that you report

it by emailing conduct at llvm.org. For more details please see our

:doc:`Reporting Guide <ReportingGuide>`.

 

* **Be friendly and patient.**

 

* **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 or lack thereof, and mental and physical ability.

 

* **Be considerate.** Your work will be used by other people, and you in turn

  will depend on the work of others. Any decision you take will affect users

  and colleagues, and you should take those consequences into account when

  making decisions. Remember that we're a world-wide community, so you might

  not be communicating in someone else's primary language.

 

* **Be respectful.** Not all of us will agree all the time, but disagreement is

  no excuse for poor behavior and poor manners. We might all experience some

  frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn into

  a personal attack. It’s important to remember that a community where people

  feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. Members of the LLVM

  community should be respectful when dealing with other members as well as

  with people outside the LLVM community.

 

* **Be careful in the words that you choose.** We are a community of

  professionals, and we conduct ourselves professionally. Be kind to others. Do

  not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and other exclusionary

  behavior aren't acceptable. This includes, but is not limited to:

 

  * Violent threats or language directed against another person.

  * Discriminatory jokes and language.

  * Posting sexually explicit or violent material.

  * Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally identifying

    information ("doxing").

  * Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms.

  * Unwelcome sexual attention.

  * Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.

  * Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to stop,

    then stop.

 

* **When we disagree, try to understand why.** Disagreements, both social and

  technical, happen all the time and LLVM is no exception. It is important that

  we resolve disagreements and differing views constructively. Remember that

  we’re different. The strength of LLVM comes from its varied community, people

  from a wide range of backgrounds. Different people have different

  perspectives on issues. Being unable to understand why someone holds

  a viewpoint doesn’t mean that they’re wrong. Don’t forget that it is human to

  err and blaming each other doesn’t get us anywhere. Instead, focus on helping

  to resolve issues and learning from mistakes.

 

Questions?

=========
 

If you have questions, please feel free to contact the LLVM Foundation Code of

Conduct Advisory Committee by emailing conduct at llvm.org.

 

 

(This text is based on the `Django Project`_ Code of Conduct, which is in turn

based on wording from the `Speak Up! project`_.)

 

.. _Django Project: https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/

.. _Speak Up! project: http://speakup.io/coc.html

 

 

-------

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151014/a8a93862/attachment-0001.html>

Sorry, my mailer is wrapping the text so I can't easily read the text, 
even less find the differences - a quick scan didn't make them obvious 
to me, but then that was just a quick scan.

On 14.10.2015 23:36, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
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 or lack thereof, and mental and physical
> ability.
>
...
> * **Be careful in the words that you choose.** We are a community of
>    professionals, and we conduct ourselves professionally. Be kind to
> others. Do
What kind of professionals? Professional boxers perhaps? Who do have a 
habit to get under the skin of the opponent with a insults before the match.

Rarely people in their teens, or early twenties would be considered as 
professional on any area of expertise. So by claiming that community 
consist of professionals, aren't you already discriminating against 
individuals who do not have any professional (what ever it may be) 
interest on the project?
>    not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and other
> exclusionary
>    behavior aren't acceptable. This includes, but is not limited to:
>
>    * Violent threats or language directed against another person.
>    * Discriminatory jokes and language.
>    * Posting sexually explicit or violent material.
>    * Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally
identifying
>      information ("doxing").
>    * Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms.
>    * Unwelcome sexual attention.
>    * Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.
>    * Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to
stop,
>      then stop.
>

Am 18.10.2015 um 05:24 schrieb Pasi Parviainen via
llvm-dev:
> On 14.10.2015 23:36, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote:
>> * **Be careful in the words that you choose.** We are a community of
>>    professionals, and we conduct ourselves professionally. Be kind to
>> others. Do
>
> What kind of professionals?
In this context, I interpret "professional" to mean "we take this
seriously", not "we make a living off it" nor "we have taken
an exam"
(neither of which is actually required).

 > Professional boxers perhaps?

That's exaggerating the wording, trying to lead it ad absurdum; it's a 
direct rhethoric attack, so your opponent has to deal with the feeling 
of being attacked.
Also, it withholds the actual argument, so you're putting your opponent 
into an unclear situation, which causes stress.

That's a good tactics to derail an opponent, but not a good one to 
cooperate towards a common goal.

It's not a terribly damaging pattern, but it's one of the patterns that 
should be avoided. It's "unprofessional" in the sense that it
distracts
from the professional pursuit of building and improving one of the best 
compiler backends around.
Not that it's terribly damaging or anything, I'm certainly not telling 
off anybody for that! Only if they make a habit out of using it, that is.

Regards,
Jo

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Pasi Parviainen via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 14.10.2015 23:36, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev 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 or lack thereof, and mental and physical
>> ability.
>>
>>
> ...
>
> * **Be careful in the words that you choose.** We are a community of
>>    professionals, and we conduct ourselves professionally. Be kind to
>> others. Do
>>
>
> What kind of professionals? Professional boxers perhaps? Who do have a
> habit to get under the skin of the opponent with a insults before the
match.
>
> Rarely people in their teens, or early twenties would be considered as
> professional on any area of expertise. So by claiming that community
> consist of professionals, aren't you already discriminating against
> individuals who do not have any professional (what ever it may be) interest
> on the project?

I agree the particular phrasing here (at least to me) reads as disparaging
to people who are not employed to work on LLVM.

As a side note: this whole bullet point is sort of weird. It is titled "Be
careful in the words that you choose." which makes it sound like it is
about incidental oversights, but everything after the second sentence seems
pretty unrelated. E.g. one of the examples is "Posting (or threatening to
post) other people's personally identifying information
("doxing")." - how
does that fall under anything involving "be careful"? Similarly for
"Unwelcome
sexual attention." in what way does that involve "the words that you
choose"; is there a choice of words that makes "Unwelcome sexual
attention." any more or less acceptable? Same is true for " Repeated
harassment of others.".

Was there a typo and "Be kind to others" should start a new top-level
bullet point? `* **Be kind to others.** ...`

-- Sean Silva

>
>    not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and other
>> exclusionary
>>    behavior aren't acceptable. This includes, but is not limited
to:
>>
>>    * Violent threats or language directed against another person.
>>    * Discriminatory jokes and language.
>>    * Posting sexually explicit or violent material.
>>    * Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally
>> identifying
>>      information ("doxing").
>>    * Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms.
>>    * Unwelcome sexual attention.
>>    * Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.
>>    * Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to
>> stop,
>>      then stop.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151019/65976f8c/attachment.html>

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:49 AM Arnaud A. de Grandmaison <
arnaud.degrandmaison at arm.com> wrote:
> I very much like that second draft !
>
>
>
> > Remember that we're a world-wide community, so you might not be
> communicating in someone else's primary language.
>
>
>
> While there, it might be worth stating as well the “someone else” may also
> be in a different timezone (or just travelling), and a lack of immediate
> answer/feedback does not necessarily imply lack of thoughtfulness.
>
I don't have any problem with this, but others have expressed a hesitation
at the size of the document, so I'd like to see other support for this
particular addition before adding it.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Arnaud
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of
*Chandler
> Carruth via llvm-dev
> *Sent:* 14 October 2015 22:36
> *To:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> *Subject:* [llvm-dev] RFC: Second draft of an LLVM Community Code of
> Conduct
>
>
>
> Greetings all,
>
>
>
> First off, thanks to everyone who contributed to the initial discussion
> thread. Judging by the responses from that thread, there seems to pretty
> broad interest in pursuing this. There also seem to be a few concerns. =]
> I'm including an updated draft based on the feedback, and I'll also
try to
> break down the major points I've seen of discussion. Sorry for the long
> email, but I suspect it is much shorter than trying to read through the
> entire thread.
>
>
>
>
>
> High level points about a code of conduct in general:
>
>
>
> - Is this trying to change how the community behaves? I think the
> resounding answer is no, this is very much meant to formalize the existing
> extremely polite and respectful behavior that the LLVM community has had
> for many years.
>
>
>
> - Was this proposed in response to some particular event or problem? No.
> There has been mounting pressure throughout the industry and even within
> our community to take a step like this. There is a particular desire by
> many to have a code of conduct governing the developer's meeting.
>
>
>
> - Is this necessary? Has this ever come up in the community? Many people
> have expressed the view that some form of code of conduct is important
> and/or necessary. Chris has pointed out that there have been incidents that
> necessitated the degree of response outlined in this at least once in the
> past, but it was *many* years ago.
>
>
>
> - Why is this important? There is a tremendous amount of information
> online about why having these types of rules makes a huge difference for
> people who may feel unsafe in our community or conference. These range from
> advocacy from groups like the Ada Initiative[1] to powerful accounts of how
> these issues and related issues can negatively impact individuals in
> communities[2][3]. These may not apply to you personally, but they do apply
> to both current and potential future members of our community.
>
>
>
> [1]: http://adainitiative.org/
>
> [2]:
>
http://www.perpendicularangel.com/2015/08/no-i-dont-trust-your-conference-without-a-code-of-conduct/
>
> [3]: http://sarah.thesharps.us/2015/10/06/what-makes-a-good-community/
>
>
>
>
>
> More specific points about the proposed wording:
>
>
>
> - Why enumerate specifics in the code of conduct? While some people do not
> need any specific examples, others benefit significantly from them. In
> minor cases, these examples can serve as reminders for well intending
> members of the community. But to understand the major reasons, consider
> someone who is seriously concerned about whether they will be safe and
> respected in the community. These people do exist, both already in our
> community and as potential newcomers (see the links above). You may not be
> one of them, but try to empathize. These people can look to a list of
> explicitly called out unacceptable behavior, find many of their concerns
> already addressed, and learn that they will indeed be safe and welcome. For
> groups and behaviors where this is a long standing and widespread problem
> *for them*, this can be the difference between joining a community and not
> joining. To read more details about this, I continue to refer to this
> article from the Ada Initiative:
>
>
>
http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/
>
>
>
> - Why use this specific wording? What about something much less verbose?
> Some of this is really the previous point in another form. However, there
> are reasons why I think this wording is a really good choice for the
> community even compared to other wording options. One, I have seen few that
> are meaningfully less verbose and still address the specifics. Two, this
> wording is *really* widely used. While I looked to and cited the Django
> Project, they are not alone. Here are some of the places using roughly the
> same core wording:
>
>
>
> http://couchdb.apache.org/conduct.html
>
> http://apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html
>
> http://opensource.box.com/code-of-conduct/
>
> https://github.com/twitter/code-of-conduct/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md
>
> https://code.facebook.com/pages/876921332402685
>
>
>
> That includes the Apache Foundation, Twitter, and Facebook among others.
> Several of these are based upon the template created by the
> http://todogroup.com/ organization which is extremely similar, but a bit
> longer than what is proposed here. So I believe that the core body of the
> wording has a really strong position in the larger industry and open source
> community.
>
>
>
> Naturally, the surrounding wording that gives the important context
> relevant for the *LLVM* community is and needs to be customized. But I have
> seen very few concerns about these parts of the text.
>
>
>
> - Do we need the degree of specificity with the "reporting
guide"? See the
> discussion about specificity in general -- much of the same applies. Part
> of what the code of conduct needs to do to effectively make people feel
> safe is to advertise that we *will* actually act on issues when they come
> up. Again, this is nothing new to the community; we have asked people to
> correct their behavior before, and as Chris has pointed out even removed
> them from the community's forums in extreme cases.
>
>
>
>
>
> Issues around the specific people and process surrounding the advisory
> committee: We frankly don't have this sorted out yet. Clearly, we need
to
> sort it out before this can be fully effective. I think we can make
> progress on converging on the code of conduct and the reporting guide, and
> then iterate on what the advisory committee looks like.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am sure I have missed some points in all of this, and for that I'm
> sorry. However, I am intentionally not going to engage in some of the very
> off topic discussions. For example, there was some excellent discussion
> about the Foundation itself. That feedback was I think well received and
> will be acted upon. I would expect updates and further discussion there in
> separate threads though.
>
>
>
>
>
> I've also sent out a patch which would add these documents to the tree,
> but with them clearly marked as *drafts*: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
This
> is based on the excellent suggestion by Philip. Please only make editorial
> and structural comments there, we should keep the vast majority of the
> content discussion here. To that end, the drafts are copied inline at the
> bottom.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Chandler
>
> ---------
>
>
>
> =============================>
> LLVM Community Code of Conduct
>
> =============================>
>
>
> .. note::
>
>
>
>    This document is currently a **DRAFT** document while it is being
> discussed
>
>    by the community.
>
>
>
> We want to ensure that the LLVM community, while large and diverse, remains
>
> welcoming and respectful to all participants. To that end, we have a few
> ground
>
> rules that we ask people to adhere to.
>
>
>
> This isn’t an exhaustive list of things that you can’t do. Rather, take it
> in
>
> the spirit in which it’s intended - a guide to make it easier to
> communicate
>
> and participate in the community.
>
>
>
> This code of conduct applies to all spaces managed by the LLVM project or
> The
>
> LLVM Foundation. This includes IRC channels, mailing lists, bug trackers,
> LLVM
>
> events such as the developer meetings and socials, and any other forums
> created
>
> by the project that the community uses for communication. It applies to
> all of
>
> your communication and conduct in these spaces, including emails, chats,
> things
>
> you say, slides, videos, posters, signs, or even t-shirts you display in
> these
>
> spaces. In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may
> affect
>
> a person's ability to participate within them.
>
>
>
> If you believe someone is violating the code of conduct, we ask that you
> report
>
> it by emailing conduct at llvm.org. For more details please see our
>
> :doc:`Reporting Guide <ReportingGuide>`.
>
>
>
> * **Be friendly and patient.**
>
>
>
> * **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 or lack thereof, and mental and physical
> ability.
>
>
>
> * **Be considerate.** Your work will be used by other people, and you in
> turn
>
>   will depend on the work of others. Any decision you take will affect
> users
>
>   and colleagues, and you should take those consequences into account when
>
>   making decisions. Remember that we're a world-wide community, so you
> might
>
>   not be communicating in someone else's primary language.
>
>
>
> * **Be respectful.** Not all of us will agree all the time, but
> disagreement is
>
>   no excuse for poor behavior and poor manners. We might all experience
> some
>
>   frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn
> into
>
>   a personal attack. It’s important to remember that a community where
> people
>
>   feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. Members of the
> LLVM
>
>   community should be respectful when dealing with other members as well as
>
>   with people outside the LLVM community.
>
>
>
> * **Be careful in the words that you choose.** We are a community of
>
>   professionals, and we conduct ourselves professionally. Be kind to
> others. Do
>
>   not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and other
> exclusionary
>
>   behavior aren't acceptable. This includes, but is not limited to:
>
>
>
>   * Violent threats or language directed against another person.
>
>   * Discriminatory jokes and language.
>
>   * Posting sexually explicit or violent material.
>
>   * Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally
identifying
>
>     information ("doxing").
>
>   * Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms.
>
>   * Unwelcome sexual attention.
>
>   * Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.
>
>   * Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to stop,
>
>     then stop.
>
>
>
> * **When we disagree, try to understand why.** Disagreements, both social
> and
>
>   technical, happen all the time and LLVM is no exception. It is important
> that
>
>   we resolve disagreements and differing views constructively. Remember
> that
>
>   we’re different. The strength of LLVM comes from its varied community,
> people
>
>   from a wide range of backgrounds. Different people have different
>
>   perspectives on issues. Being unable to understand why someone holds
>
>   a viewpoint doesn’t mean that they’re wrong. Don’t forget that it is
> human to
>
>   err and blaming each other doesn’t get us anywhere. Instead, focus on
> helping
>
>   to resolve issues and learning from mistakes.
>
>
>
> Questions?
>
> =========>
>
>
> If you have questions, please feel free to contact the LLVM Foundation
> Code of
>
> Conduct Advisory Committee by emailing conduct at llvm.org.
>
>
>
>
>
> (This text is based on the `Django Project`_ Code of Conduct, which is in
> turn
>
> based on wording from the `Speak Up! project`_.)
>
>
>
> .. _Django Project: https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/
>
> .. _Speak Up! project: http://speakup.io/coc.html
>
>
>
>
>
> -------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151020/2a2abf07/attachment-0001.html>

Hi Chandler,

I have two very specific and very important details I want to discuss
with you. The list of harassment concerns and the reporting policy
being unilateral, with the latter being much more important than the
former.

I'm pleading people to avoid in-line reply, since the ideas are
complete on their own, and picking any one paragraph may lead to
misinterpretation of my words. Please, just read through, and comment
at the end of each block.

I also ask people not to interpret my words in any prejudicial way.
This is a mathematical analysis of the text and the community, and
it's the only type of analysis I'm physically able to make. If any of
this looks offensive, it's because I'm not using the "politically
correct" phrase construction and terms, not because I think human
beings should be treated differently based on any characteristic
irrelevant to the discussion. If you have any specific concern, let me
know in private, to avoid deviating us from the discussion at hand.

   0. Sources

There are two main ones: the Ada initiative and Sarah Sharp's blog,
both focus on gender inclusion. Personally, I agree with *all* of
that, but I don't think we should side with any specific concern.

Most of the time, prejudice is very similar, and advocating against
one type often equals most other types. But not always. A few
examples:

 * It's easy to spot gender by names, so *directed* prejudice on a
mailing list is easier to women (and ethnicity) than sexual
orientation of mental disability. Indirect prejudice is a lot easier
to spot overall.
 * Disability is well established, so it's very crass to discriminate
face to face, but some people feel more comfortable in discriminating
against women (or gay) in person, especially if surrounded by other
like minded men.
 * Skin colour and immigration status is a *very* contentious issue in
the US, but almost irrelevant in other places of the world. This
harder to spot electronically but *very* easy personally, also easier
to get it wrong in the latter.
 * Religious discrimination is not as common in US as it is in Europe,
because of the clash in cultural background in more mixed societies.
It's possible that Americans (and I mean North, Centre and South) are
more likely to be rude religiously than Europeans or Asians, due to
severe lack of exposure to non-Christian religions.
 * Some cultures think it's extremely disrespectful to treat women
like men. Others treat gun ownership like a religion, more important
than people's safety. Isn't a gun more physically dangerous than
disrespect?

While we could go on forever, the key issue here is that all of those
problems have infinite ramifications, but not all of them are treated
equally by people that suffer a specific type of prejudice.

I encourage you to draw another parallel here with me:

Ada's post brings the "community conduct" in the beginning, but
focus
on physical contact, ie. conferences. In that area, discrimination is
very clear, sometimes aggressive, and therefore potentially dangerous.
Strong measures need to be taken quickly to safeguard the mental and
physical state of the other participants. But most of that has a lot
less practical value when dealing with mailing list or IRC conduct.

Sarah's post is a lot more inline with the electronic interactions,
which most of us do most of the year, and it doesn't bring much about
all the differences nor speaks on drastic terms. It's based on
respect. Plain and simple.

So, based on your own sources, physical encounters and measures *may*
need to be a lot more drastic than electronic ones, and that's not
reflected on your proposal.


   1. Harassment listing

My point, simply put, is that listing some types of harassment, but
not others, is prejudicial in itself against the people that face
harassment types not specifically listed.

Most of the codes you linked have a well separated block named
"Diversity Statement", which lists even more stuff than what you used.
CouchDB has both the list and the statement, which is highly
redundant.

As I listed above, there are many cultural, social and ethnic issues
in each type of prejudice, and trying to list them all would be
impossible. So, I think we should stick to the basics, remembering
that this is an *international* community.

I was recently reading about the word "race" in the English language.
I see it as very derogative, trying to imply that we're *that*
different. But I take it this scientific take on the meaning of the
word may have been diluted over the years. I don't mind the use of it,
as long as all native English speaker folks agree it's conflict-free.

My proposal is to include one term for each *type* of conflict. I see:
 * "race" and/or "ethnicity" and/or "gender" as
all conflicts
involving visual individual characteristics,
 * "sexual orientation" and/or "religion" and/or
"political views" as
important non-visual characteristics,
 * "social status" and "disability" as important background
discriminatory issues

Everything else can be regarded as sub-groups of these. The codes you
linked all have three very interesting ones: genotype, phenotype,
neurotype. It would be possible to mathematically include *all* others
within those three, but that would be too terse.

So, I understand this is a spectrum, and that we have to find the
right threshold. Only, that threshold is different for each one of us,
because we all suffer from different types of prejudice.

One idea is to set on a finite list, say 10, and let people choose
which 10 they cannot live without, and pick the most common. After
all, this IS "including, but not limited to".

Or, if no one else is feeling segregated by that list, just keep it
and ignore everything I said. :)


   2. Unilateral reporting and actions

This is the critical one, and unlike the harassment listing, one that
I'll have *a lot* of trouble if it goes in this way.

The key points are:

 * There is *no* mention that the committee will gather, nor value,
the input of the accused.
 * Due to protection issues, the accused will most likely only be
contacted *after* the decision is taken
 * Most decisions are unilateral and cannot be appealed

If this was a form of government, it would be called despotism.
Without knowing what the committee will be, or how it'll be chosen,
replaced and be made responsible for their actions (some codes you
link account for some of that), there is little we can work with at
this moment. None of the codes nor the blog posts you linked have that
kind of unilateral and strict consequences. I'm not sure where you got
that from.

Factoring out immediate criminal danger, my proposal is simple:

 * The accused must be involved, and must be given *every* chance to
defend him/herself, including asking other people's statements,
publicly or privately,
 * The accused's own deficiencies *must* be taken into account when
presenting the verdict, and he/she should be consulted on which
response would be best,
 * *Every* decision must allow for appeal if new evidence is
presented, (the asymptote here is zero very early)
 * Any member of the community can request investigation of the
committee's decisions, by an independent representative panel.

By representative, I mean chosen by the people, for the people, and
accountable for their actions to the people, with the same vigour as
we deal with breaches of conduct.

Basically put, the ends don't justify the means. This reporting guide
puts too much power into a committee that hasn't even been decided how
it will be formed. Given how the LLVM Foundation was formed, I
understand why people are unsure how this will play out. However, even
if we did know exactly how the committee would be chosen, these
guarantees are still mandatory. As I said earlier, projects and people
change. If the code allows for abuse, given enough time, abuse will be
taken.

cheers,
--renato

Am 20.10.2015 um 13:07 schrieb Renato Golin via
llvm-dev:
> It's possible that Americans (and I mean North, Centre and South) are
> more likely to be rude religiously than Europeans or Asians, due to
> severe lack of exposure to non-Christian religions.
Just for the record:
Actually in Mid and South America, non-Christian religions are making a 
comeback, up to and including representatives of shamanic belief systems 
inaugurating a president.
I.e. I think your analysis may be slightly off the mark here.

Some more general remarks:

I do agree that any concrete bullet list of harrassing actions is 
culturally biased, and I do agree that that might cause problems in the 
long term.

I'm not 100% sure that this is going to be serious though. No 
dictatorship ever worked as long as people could vote with their feet, 
and if it comes to the worst and the LLVM committee starts making 
"strange decisions", there will be an organizational fork and likely a
code fork as well. Over time, one of the forks will die, or they will 
get merged amicably - either way nothing really bad happened, except 
maybe to those who engaged in direct confrontation.
The knowledge that this can happen will in itself cause the committee to 
restrain any dictatorial ambitions, further reducing the issue a bit.

Well, that's the typical event sequences. There is the occasional 
exception, mostly revolving around situations where the original project 
isn't that easy to leave or fork after all. So I won't deny that there 
could be a problem, and it would be nice to get that improved.
OTOH any alternate proposals would need to be evaluated as well, and I 
have seen situations where the cure was as bad as the illness. I'm 
willing to accept that some things simply can't be regulated via rules 
and bylaws, and the best and most well-meaning organisations can 
deteriorate. It's just what can (and ultimately will) happen, not the 
End of the World as we Know it, so... relax :-)

Regards,
Jo

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:07:43PM +0100, Renato Golin via llvm-dev
wrote:
> Hi Chandler,
> 
> I have two very specific and very important details I want to discuss
> with you. The list of harassment concerns and the reporting policy
> being unilateral, with the latter being much more important than the
> former.
> 
> I'm pleading people to avoid in-line reply, since the ideas are
> complete on their own, and picking any one paragraph may lead to
> misinterpretation of my words. Please, just read through, and comment
> at the end of each block.
> 
> I also ask people not to interpret my words in any prejudicial way.
> This is a mathematical analysis of the text and the community, and
> it's the only type of analysis I'm physically able to make. If any
of
> this looks offensive, it's because I'm not using the
"politically
> correct" phrase construction and terms, not because I think human
> beings should be treated differently based on any characteristic
> irrelevant to the discussion. If you have any specific concern, let me
> know in private, to avoid deviating us from the discussion at hand.
> 
>    0. Sources
> 
> There are two main ones: the Ada initiative and Sarah Sharp's blog,
> both focus on gender inclusion. Personally, I agree with *all* of
> that, but I don't think we should side with any specific concern.
> 
> Most of the time, prejudice is very similar, and advocating against
> one type often equals most other types. But not always. A few
> examples:
> 
>  * It's easy to spot gender by names, so *directed* prejudice on a
> mailing list is easier to women (and ethnicity) than sexual
> orientation of mental disability. Indirect prejudice is a lot easier
> to spot overall.
>  * Disability is well established, so it's very crass to discriminate
> face to face, but some people feel more comfortable in discriminating
> against women (or gay) in person, especially if surrounded by other
> like minded men.
>  * Skin colour and immigration status is a *very* contentious issue in
> the US, but almost irrelevant in other places of the world. This
> harder to spot electronically but *very* easy personally, also easier
> to get it wrong in the latter.
>  * Religious discrimination is not as common in US as it is in Europe,
> because of the clash in cultural background in more mixed societies.
> It's possible that Americans (and I mean North, Centre and South) are
> more likely to be rude religiously than Europeans or Asians, due to
> severe lack of exposure to non-Christian religions.
>  * Some cultures think it's extremely disrespectful to treat women
> like men.
Hi Renato,
With all due respect, cultural tradition doesn't justify discrimination
against women. More generally, there is a long history of outrageous and
often violent discrimination against groups that becomes embedded within
the cultural tradition of a segment of a society. That is true everywhere,
including the United States.

Living and working in Silicon Valley for many years, I have worked with
and become friends with folks from all over the world. And most of them
are wonderfully adaptive folks who aspire to the ideal of equality for
all that the United States aspires to as an inclusive society at large.
But I have personally been the victim of hideous discrimination projected
onto me by individual's who justify their actions by cultural tradition.
It's no small matter.

Karen.
> Others treat gun ownership like a religion, more important
> than people's safety. Isn't a gun more physically dangerous than
> disrespect?
> 
> While we could go on forever, the key issue here is that all of those
> problems have infinite ramifications, but not all of them are treated
> equally by people that suffer a specific type of prejudice.
> 
> I encourage you to draw another parallel here with me:
> 
> Ada's post brings the "community conduct" in the beginning,
but focus
> on physical contact, ie. conferences. In that area, discrimination is
> very clear, sometimes aggressive, and therefore potentially dangerous.
> Strong measures need to be taken quickly to safeguard the mental and
> physical state of the other participants. But most of that has a lot
> less practical value when dealing with mailing list or IRC conduct.
> 
> Sarah's post is a lot more inline with the electronic interactions,
> which most of us do most of the year, and it doesn't bring much about
> all the differences nor speaks on drastic terms. It's based on
> respect. Plain and simple.
> 
> So, based on your own sources, physical encounters and measures *may*
> need to be a lot more drastic than electronic ones, and that's not
> reflected on your proposal.
> 
> 
>    1. Harassment listing
> 
> My point, simply put, is that listing some types of harassment, but
> not others, is prejudicial in itself against the people that face
> harassment types not specifically listed.
> 
> Most of the codes you linked have a well separated block named
> "Diversity Statement", which lists even more stuff than what you
used.
> CouchDB has both the list and the statement, which is highly
> redundant.
> 
> As I listed above, there are many cultural, social and ethnic issues
> in each type of prejudice, and trying to list them all would be
> impossible. So, I think we should stick to the basics, remembering
> that this is an *international* community.
> 
> I was recently reading about the word "race" in the English
language.
> I see it as very derogative, trying to imply that we're *that*
> different. But I take it this scientific take on the meaning of the
> word may have been diluted over the years. I don't mind the use of it,
> as long as all native English speaker folks agree it's conflict-free.
> 
> My proposal is to include one term for each *type* of conflict. I see:
>  * "race" and/or "ethnicity" and/or "gender"
as all conflicts
> involving visual individual characteristics,
>  * "sexual orientation" and/or "religion" and/or
"political views" as
> important non-visual characteristics,
>  * "social status" and "disability" as important
background
> discriminatory issues
> 
> Everything else can be regarded as sub-groups of these. The codes you
> linked all have three very interesting ones: genotype, phenotype,
> neurotype. It would be possible to mathematically include *all* others
> within those three, but that would be too terse.
> 
> So, I understand this is a spectrum, and that we have to find the
> right threshold. Only, that threshold is different for each one of us,
> because we all suffer from different types of prejudice.
> 
> One idea is to set on a finite list, say 10, and let people choose
> which 10 they cannot live without, and pick the most common. After
> all, this IS "including, but not limited to".
> 
> Or, if no one else is feeling segregated by that list, just keep it
> and ignore everything I said. :)
> 
> 
>    2. Unilateral reporting and actions
> 
> This is the critical one, and unlike the harassment listing, one that
> I'll have *a lot* of trouble if it goes in this way.
> 
> The key points are:
> 
>  * There is *no* mention that the committee will gather, nor value,
> the input of the accused.
>  * Due to protection issues, the accused will most likely only be
> contacted *after* the decision is taken
>  * Most decisions are unilateral and cannot be appealed
> 
> If this was a form of government, it would be called despotism.
> Without knowing what the committee will be, or how it'll be chosen,
> replaced and be made responsible for their actions (some codes you
> link account for some of that), there is little we can work with at
> this moment. None of the codes nor the blog posts you linked have that
> kind of unilateral and strict consequences. I'm not sure where you got
> that from.
> 
> Factoring out immediate criminal danger, my proposal is simple:
> 
>  * The accused must be involved, and must be given *every* chance to
> defend him/herself, including asking other people's statements,
> publicly or privately,
>  * The accused's own deficiencies *must* be taken into account when
> presenting the verdict, and he/she should be consulted on which
> response would be best,
>  * *Every* decision must allow for appeal if new evidence is
> presented, (the asymptote here is zero very early)
>  * Any member of the community can request investigation of the
> committee's decisions, by an independent representative panel.
> 
> By representative, I mean chosen by the people, for the people, and
> accountable for their actions to the people, with the same vigour as
> we deal with breaches of conduct.
> 
> Basically put, the ends don't justify the means. This reporting guide
> puts too much power into a committee that hasn't even been decided how
> it will be formed. Given how the LLVM Foundation was formed, I
> understand why people are unsure how this will play out. However, even
> if we did know exactly how the committee would be chosen, these
> guarantees are still mandatory. As I said earlier, projects and people
> change. If the code allows for abuse, given enough time, abuse will be
> taken.
> 
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> 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