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

On 10/14/2015 01:25 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:02 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org
> <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 14 October 2015 at 20:35, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
>     <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto: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.
>
>
> There is an extremely large difference between fragility and an 
> inability to be polite and respectful.
Chandler, I think your opening here is a bit quick to dismiss Renato's 
position.  Your following text is more reasonable, but you first 
sentence comes across as a bit harsh.

(For the record, I'd normally not have said anything, but since this is 
specifically in a thread about community social
norms...)
>
> I do not think there is a useful way for us to encourage and welcome 
> individuals who, for whatever reason including medical reasons, are 
> literally *incapable* of interacting in a social setting in a civil, 
> polite, and respectful manner. That would be a no-win situation. But 
> reality is not this cut and dry or black and white.
>
> I have both friends and colleagues with autism and other severe 
> mental, social, and cultural challenges. And yet, they are not 
> *incapable* of this. Certainly, sometimes, it is a significantly 
> greater challenge for them to understand why people react in the way 
> that they do. However, they take on that challenge and learn and 
> succeed at being wonderful people. Do they have to work harder than I 
> do? Some of them probably do. Do I try to sympathize, remain patient, 
> and help them as much as I can? Absolutely. Does any of this mean it 
> is *ok for them to be disrepectful?* Absolutely not.
I would read Renato's point as being in a round-about-way a request for 
help.  How should he (or anyone) not familiar with the existing norms 
within the community expect to function?  Part of learning is making 
mistakes and being corrected.  Particular for someone with a form of 
autism, those corrections may need to include an explanation of what not 
to do again and why.  I think part of Renato's concern - it definitely 
is part of mine! - is that he might say something, unintentionally 
offend someone, and not get a chance to learn from it.

For the record, I have personally run into this in the past.  I've 
managed to seriously offend a couple of folks and had *absolutely* no 
idea why until a third party took me aside and explained what I did and 
how it was perceived.  That doesn't change the fact that I'm still 
responsible for having given offense or that I didn't do my best to make 
amends, but the chance to learn without it being "game over" is key.

Now, obviously, providing that learning opportunity should not be taken 
too far.  If someone's safety is in question, "game over" is 
*absolutely* the right response.  Nor does it mean that there can not be 
serious consequences.  We simply need to keep in mind that behavior can 
change, and that offense may not have been (probably wasn't) 
intentional.  If we keep that in mind and steer towards moderation and 
informal correction (as we have in the past), I don't see there being 
any inherent conflict here.
>
> This is a tradeoff between effort on your part to be polite and 
> respectful, potentially *a tremendous amount of effort*, and both 
> causing direct and in some cases irreversible emotional damage to 
> someone and furthering an entrenched and harmful bias in our community 
> as well as the larger industry.
>
> I think it is reasonable to ask people to undertake the effort, even 
> though for some it will be a very significant effort.
+1 to this.

(Nothing I said above is intended to dispute this in any way.  If it 
seems that way, my wording was poor and please ask me to
clarity.)
> For example, this discussion and getting a strong and effective code 
> of conduct is a *tremendous* effort for me. It is worth it. I couldn't 
> think of a better cause to pour my energy into than making more people 
> feel welcome in our open source community.
>
> And I do want you to feel welcome here. I just *also* want you to put 
> forth the necessary effort to keep your communication at the high 
> standard we have here. And I have seen you do so! I *know* that you 
> are in fact capable of communicating effectively *and* in line with 
> the proposed code of conduct. So I truly hope you do not feel discouraged.
>
> -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/20151014/72da314d/attachment-0001.html>

On 14 October 2015 at 21:57, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
wrote:
> Chandler, I think your opening here is a bit quick to dismiss Renato's
> position.  Your following text is more reasonable, but you first sentence
> comes across as a bit harsh.
I agree, and felt a bit pushed back, but the rest of the email has
clarified it well.

I agree with Chandler's point, though. Some people are incorrigible,
and no matter how much they add, it's never a good situation to be in.
No excuses.

> I think part of Renato's concern - it definitely is part of mine! - is
> that he might say something, unintentionally offend someone, and not get a
> chance to learn from it.
Absolutely!

> That doesn't change the fact that I'm still responsible for
> having given offense or that I didn't do my best to make amends, but
the
> chance to learn without it being "game over" is key.
Precisely the kind of situation that happens almost every day in my
life. That's why I'm very open about my limitations, I learnt that it
helps people to give me a chance to understand.

I don't want to use that as an excuse for bad behaviour. Nor I think
people have the obligation to provide me an explanation.

> If someone's safety is in question, "game over" is
*absolutely* the right response.
Absolutely.

> I think it is reasonable to ask people to undertake the effort, even though
> for some it will be a very significant effort.
I see this more of a personal choice. I know people that chose not to
care, and they went back to their caves. I chose to care, and I suffer
every day, but the joy of being part of a community is greater than
that, so I'm ok. Stressed, but ok.

>>> Chandler wrote:
> For example, this discussion and getting a strong and effective code of
> conduct is a *tremendous* effort for me. It is worth it. I couldn't
think of
> a better cause to pour my energy into than making more people feel welcome
> in our open source community.
I can imagine, and I commend you for that. I don't think I said that
yet, but thank you for doing this.

> And I do want you to feel welcome here. I just *also* want you to put forth
> the necessary effort to keep your communication at the high standard we
have
> here. And I have seen you do so! I *know* that you are in fact capable of
> communicating effectively *and* in line with the proposed code of conduct.
> So I truly hope you do not feel discouraged.
It may seem silly, but this has just made my day. I was really worried
that our past altercations had marked you in some meaningful way. I'm
happy to know that we're past that.

If you still feel in any way uneasy, *please*, let me know.

I'll add my two propositions to your new review in Phab.

cheers,
--renato

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:57 PM Philip Reames <listmail at
philipreames.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 10/14/2015 01:25 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:02 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at
linaro.org>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> There is an extremely large difference between fragility and an inability
> to be polite and respectful.
>
> Chandler, I think your opening here is a bit quick to dismiss Renato's
> position.  Your following text is more reasonable, but you first sentence
> comes across as a bit harsh.
>
I'm sorry it came across as harsh, and I'm not sure what led you to feel
it
was dismissive. I will try to be more clear here: I'm very literally trying
to point out a significant difference between two concerns, neither of
which can be dismissed, but which I think there are very different options
for responding to.

>
> (For the record, I'd normally not have said anything, but since this is
> specifically in a thread about community social norms...)
>
You should say something, even normally. =]

>
>
> I do not think there is a useful way for us to encourage and welcome
> individuals who, for whatever reason including medical reasons, are
> literally *incapable* of interacting in a social setting in a civil,
> polite, and respectful manner. That would be a no-win situation. But
> reality is not this cut and dry or black and white.
>
> I have both friends and colleagues with autism and other severe mental,
> social, and cultural challenges. And yet, they are not *incapable* of this.
> Certainly, sometimes, it is a significantly greater challenge for them to
> understand why people react in the way that they do. However, they take on
> that challenge and learn and succeed at being wonderful people. Do they
> have to work harder than I do? Some of them probably do. Do I try to
> sympathize, remain patient, and help them as much as I can? Absolutely.
> Does any of this mean it is *ok for them to be disrepectful?* Absolutely
> not.
>
> I would read Renato's point as being in a round-about-way a request for
> help.  How should he (or anyone) not familiar with the existing norms
> within the community expect to function?
>
I mean, I did... and, much as you pointed out in another email, I think
that a code of conduct is *exactly* the kind of tool that helps here? I'm
not really certain what you're trying to say here.

> Part of learning is making mistakes and being corrected.  Particular for
> someone with a form of autism, those corrections may need to include an
> explanation of what not to do again and why.  I think part of Renato's
> concern - it definitely is part of mine! - is that he might say something,
> unintentionally offend someone, and not get a chance to learn from it.
>
So, what gives you that impression from the proposed document? My reading
is that there will be explicit feedback given, which would seem to directly
help folks learn?


There is a related issue that may be confusing matters. It is completely
reasonable to desire and seek out information to help you understand what
you can do to improve if communication goes poorly. I would hope that the
advisory committee works very hard to provide this kind of feedback in
every case where they can. However, it is incredibly important to not
expect or demand that a person *you have made feel unsafe* take the time to
explain why. Being forced to explain the problem can and in many cases does
*exacerbate* the problem for the individual. If they are up for the
challenge of explaining, wonderful. But if they are not, it is critical to
respect that and give them the space to feel safe again. Talk to your
friends, to others, to the advisory committee, to whomever else you need to
to learn how to avoid it in the future.

If why this is the case doesn't make sense, I can try to dig up resources
that go into great detail on the psychological effects of being forced to
help teach people why hostile behavior was hostile, but I don't have them
handy at the moment. However, please trust me that this is a real and
serious issue. As an example, in some cases it essentially forces people
who are often put back into a victim mindset to relive whatever caused that
mindset.

Anyways, I don't *think* that is the issue here, but I wanted to provide
the context in case it comes up in the future.

> For the record, I have personally run into this in the past.  I've
managed
> to seriously offend a couple of folks and had *absolutely* no idea why
> until a third party took me aside and explained what I did and how it was
> perceived.  That doesn't change the fact that I'm still responsible
for
> having given offense or that I didn't do my best to make amends, but
the
> chance to learn without it being "game over" is key.
>
I don't see *anything* like a "game over" in the reporting
guidelines. The
decisions should be rational, measured, incremental, and something that can
be questioned and re-examined as time goes on.

>
> Now, obviously, providing that learning opportunity should not be taken
> too far.  If someone's safety is in question, "game over" is
*absolutely*
> the right response.  Nor does it mean that there can not be serious
> consequences.  We simply need to keep in mind that behavior can change, and
> that offense may not have been (probably wasn't) intentional.  If we
keep
> that in mind and steer towards moderation and informal correction (as we
> have in the past), I don't see there being any inherent conflict here.
>
I think we're actually in total agreement here, and I think the document is
too. If you see things that aren't, please point them out, and better yet
suggest edits that would help.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151014/24022b92/attachment.html>

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:10:48PM +0100, Renato Golin via llvm-dev
wrote:
> On 14 October 2015 at 21:57, Philip Reames <listmail at
philipreames.com> wrote:
> > Chandler, I think your opening here is a bit quick to dismiss
Renato's
> > position.  Your following text is more reasonable, but you first
sentence
> > comes across as a bit harsh.
> 
> I agree, and felt a bit pushed back, but the rest of the email has
> clarified it well.
> 
> I agree with Chandler's point, though. Some people are incorrigible,
> and no matter how much they add, it's never a good situation to be in.
> No excuses.
> 
> 
> > I think part of Renato's concern - it definitely is part of mine!
- is
> > that he might say something, unintentionally offend someone, and not
get a
> > chance to learn from it.
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> 
> > That doesn't change the fact that I'm still responsible for
> > having given offense or that I didn't do my best to make amends,
but the
> > chance to learn without it being "game over" is key.
> 
> Precisely the kind of situation that happens almost every day in my
> life. That's why I'm very open about my limitations, I learnt that
it
> helps people to give me a chance to understand.
> 
> I don't want to use that as an excuse for bad behaviour. Nor I think
> people have the obligation to provide me an explanation.
> 
> 
> > If someone's safety is in question, "game over" is
*absolutely* the right response.
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> 
> > I think it is reasonable to ask people to undertake the effort, even
though
> > for some it will be a very significant effort.
> 
> I see this more of a personal choice. I know people that chose not to
> care, and they went back to their caves. I chose to care, and I suffer
> every day, but the joy of being part of a community is greater than
> that, so I'm ok. Stressed, but ok.

Hi Renato,
I recommend this book for you: "The Achievement Habit" by Bernard
Roth.

Bernard Roth is a founder and the academic director of Stanford University's
world famous Design School (the d.school). This book is a distillation of the
ideas and concepts taught at the Design School. This book focuses on helping
folks to understand themselves -- how they think and how they perceive and how
they react to stimuli. And then it focuses on how to communicate our ideas
and intent effectively to others. And then it focuses on how to effectively
interact and engage groups of folks to work collaboratively to realize a team
goal.

And the reason is these skills and capabilities play an outsized role in
creative achievement both individually and within a team environment. This
isn't some theoretical presentation. It is crafted to help individuals to
improve their own lives, providing many useful and practical exercises that
help a person to assimilate these concepts into their own skill-sets and
capabilities.

You are very bright and highly motivated. And I am certain this book will be
of great help in your efforts to learn and grow socially and professionally.

Adapt and thrive,
Karen
> 
> 
> >>> Chandler wrote:
> > For example, this discussion and getting a strong and effective code
of
> > conduct is a *tremendous* effort for me. It is worth it. I
couldn't think of
> > a better cause to pour my energy into than making more people feel
welcome
> > in our open source community.
> 
> I can imagine, and I commend you for that. I don't think I said that
> yet, but thank you for doing this.
> 
> 
> > And I do want you to feel welcome here. I just *also* want you to put
forth
> > the necessary effort to keep your communication at the high standard
we have
> > here. And I have seen you do so! I *know* that you are in fact capable
of
> > communicating effectively *and* in line with the proposed code of
conduct.
> > So I truly hope you do not feel discouraged.
> 
> It may seem silly, but this has just made my day. I was really worried
> that our past altercations had marked you in some meaningful way. I'm
> happy to know that we're past that.
> 
> If you still feel in any way uneasy, *please*, let me know.
> 
> I'll add my two propositions to your new review in Phab.
> 
> 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

>> (For the record, I'd normally not have said anything, but since
this is
specifically in a thread about community social
norms...)
> You should say something, even normally. =]
Well alright then... ;)
> However, it is incredibly important to not expect or demand that a person
*you have made feel unsafe* take the time to explain why. Being forced to
explain the problem can and in many cases does *exacerbate* the problem for
the individual. If they are up for the challenge of explaining, wonderful.
But if they are not, it is critical to respect that and give them the space
to feel safe again. Talk to your friends, to others, to the advisory
committee, to whomever else you need to to learn how to avoid it in the
future.

These statements (and some others in the thread) have been black and white
in placing all onus on the person accused of causing offense. The real
world is not black and white, and occasionally people take offense too
easily. I'll cite donglegate again. It's a worthwhile thought exercise
to
consider, in light of the introduction of the CoC, how the community would
respond to an incident where almost everyone agrees that the perpetrator's
behavior is benign, and yet someone has taken serious offense to it. I
don't expect a concrete answer to this, it's just something to consider:
Just because someone is offended, doesn't *necessarily* mean that the
accused did something wrong, or that they're obliged to change their
behavior.

- Lang.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:57 PM Philip Reames <listmail at
philipreames.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 10/14/2015 01:25 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:02 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at
linaro.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> There is an extremely large difference between fragility and an
inability
>> to be polite and respectful.
>>
>> Chandler, I think your opening here is a bit quick to dismiss
Renato's
>> position.  Your following text is more reasonable, but you first
sentence
>> comes across as a bit harsh.
>>
>
> I'm sorry it came across as harsh, and I'm not sure what led you to
feel
> it was dismissive. I will try to be more clear here: I'm very literally
> trying to point out a significant difference between two concerns, neither
> of which can be dismissed, but which I think there are very different
> options for responding to.
>
>
>>
>> (For the record, I'd normally not have said anything, but since
this is
>> specifically in a thread about community social norms...)
>>
>
> You should say something, even normally. =]
>
>
>>
>>
>> I do not think there is a useful way for us to encourage and welcome
>> individuals who, for whatever reason including medical reasons, are
>> literally *incapable* of interacting in a social setting in a civil,
>> polite, and respectful manner. That would be a no-win situation. But
>> reality is not this cut and dry or black and white.
>>
>> I have both friends and colleagues with autism and other severe mental,
>> social, and cultural challenges. And yet, they are not *incapable* of
this.
>> Certainly, sometimes, it is a significantly greater challenge for them
to
>> understand why people react in the way that they do. However, they take
on
>> that challenge and learn and succeed at being wonderful people. Do they
>> have to work harder than I do? Some of them probably do. Do I try to
>> sympathize, remain patient, and help them as much as I can? Absolutely.
>> Does any of this mean it is *ok for them to be disrepectful?*
Absolutely
>> not.
>>
>> I would read Renato's point as being in a round-about-way a request
for
>> help.  How should he (or anyone) not familiar with the existing norms
>> within the community expect to function?
>>
>
> I mean, I did... and, much as you pointed out in another email, I think
> that a code of conduct is *exactly* the kind of tool that helps here?
I'm
> not really certain what you're trying to say here.
>
>
>> Part of learning is making mistakes and being corrected.  Particular
for
>> someone with a form of autism, those corrections may need to include an
>> explanation of what not to do again and why.  I think part of
Renato's
>> concern - it definitely is part of mine! - is that he might say
something,
>> unintentionally offend someone, and not get a chance to learn from it.
>>
>
> So, what gives you that impression from the proposed document? My reading
> is that there will be explicit feedback given, which would seem to directly
> help folks learn?
>
>
> There is a related issue that may be confusing matters. It is completely
> reasonable to desire and seek out information to help you understand what
> you can do to improve if communication goes poorly. I would hope that the
> advisory committee works very hard to provide this kind of feedback in
> every case where they can. However, it is incredibly important to not
> expect or demand that a person *you have made feel unsafe* take the time to
> explain why. Being forced to explain the problem can and in many cases does
> *exacerbate* the problem for the individual. If they are up for the
> challenge of explaining, wonderful. But if they are not, it is critical to
> respect that and give them the space to feel safe again. Talk to your
> friends, to others, to the advisory committee, to whomever else you need to
> to learn how to avoid it in the future.
>
> If why this is the case doesn't make sense, I can try to dig up
resources
> that go into great detail on the psychological effects of being forced to
> help teach people why hostile behavior was hostile, but I don't have
them
> handy at the moment. However, please trust me that this is a real and
> serious issue. As an example, in some cases it essentially forces people
> who are often put back into a victim mindset to relive whatever caused that
> mindset.
>
> Anyways, I don't *think* that is the issue here, but I wanted to
provide
> the context in case it comes up in the future.
>
>
>> For the record, I have personally run into this in the past.  I've
>> managed to seriously offend a couple of folks and had *absolutely* no
idea
>> why until a third party took me aside and explained what I did and how
it
>> was perceived.  That doesn't change the fact that I'm still
responsible for
>> having given offense or that I didn't do my best to make amends,
but the
>> chance to learn without it being "game over" is key.
>>
>
> I don't see *anything* like a "game over" in the reporting
guidelines. The
> decisions should be rational, measured, incremental, and something that can
> be questioned and re-examined as time goes on.
>
>
>>
>> Now, obviously, providing that learning opportunity should not be taken
>> too far.  If someone's safety is in question, "game over"
is *absolutely*
>> the right response.  Nor does it mean that there can not be serious
>> consequences.  We simply need to keep in mind that behavior can change,
and
>> that offense may not have been (probably wasn't) intentional.  If
we keep
>> that in mind and steer towards moderation and informal correction (as
we
>> have in the past), I don't see there being any inherent conflict
here.
>>
>
> I think we're actually in total agreement here, and I think the
document
> is too. If you see things that aren't, please point them out, and
better
> yet suggest edits that would help.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151014/cdcf174d/attachment.html>

Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote:
> However, it is incredibly
> important to not expect or demand that a person *you have made feel
> unsafe* take the time to explain why.
I feel what you have written here to be offensive to the highest degree,
and your words make me feel unsafe when contemplating their effect on my
prospects for future interaction with this community.