llvm dev - May 2016 - Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct

On 5 May 2016 at 13:23, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
wrote:
> Is the list PG, PG-13, R or at what level do "we" adults all
consider
> "ok". Even on broadcast tv (in the US) you'll hear some
profanity.
> (context)
>
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts
Excellent context!

> Some people have pointed out that they don't like the R-rated style of
> the LKML. Profanity and no holds barred just isn't for some people. I
> can respect that, but personally I find it more funny and raw/honest.
I don't care much about the swearing like "s***, I broke the bots
again", but I understand not everyone is like that, so I avoid to the
best of my abilities.

I can easily cope with "this code is a piece of s***", because
sometimes it really is. Some people take it personal, though, so it's
best if we all always avoid that kind of talk.

But there's nothing dubious about: "you are a piece of s*** for
writing this code". That is totally unacceptable.

Now, encoding this in the CoC is the hard part...

> In the world there exists arbitrators/moderators - Why not define a
> couple of "adults" who have demonstrated a history of strong and
> reasonable character. People who can defuse situations and basically
> be the guy which "we" trust to make good decisions. Elect 3 -
> something pops up... we go to them to make a decision or help fix
> stuff. It's low volume so shouldn't be a burden.. they would likely
> help out anyway..
That's another point I had forgotten.

I don't think the people in this committee should be nominated, but
voted. This is more than just the LLVM Foundation doing stuff on the
side, this is out whole community, of which the foundation is only
part of.

I feel very strongly about that, even if I trust the people that get
nominated. Others might not, and that'd be against the very code we're
trying to uphold.

cheers,
--renato

On 5 May 2016, at 13:44, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> 
> I don't think the people in this committee should be nominated, but
> voted. This is more than just the LLVM Foundation doing stuff on the
> side, this is out whole community, of which the foundation is only
> part of.
> 
> I feel very strongly about that, even if I trust the people that get
> nominated. Others might not, and that'd be against the very code
we're
> trying to uphold.
For the FreeBSD equivalent, we are planning to have a mixture (the exact mix
still to be decided - these things are *hard* and I feel that the LLVM
Foundation has rushed this, as indicated by the replies in the thread) of people
from the following categories:

- Nominated by the Core Team (there’s no direct LLVM equivalent, as there’s no
elected leadership of the LLVM project)

- Directly elected from within the community

- Respected individuals coopted from outside of the community (to ensure that we
are not producing an echo chamber - imagine a CoC committee drawn from LKML
contributors to see how badly things could go if you don’t do this)

I hope that the LLVM Foundation will adopt a similar strategy.  The other very
important point is that members of this committee must be trained in handling
harassment complaints.  Most large employers offer this kind of training (I’m
scheduled to go on the one offered here in a couple of weeks), and there are
independent ones that the Foundation could pay for people to attend if they can
not get this training from their employer.

David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3719 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160505/35928262/attachment.bin>

On 5 May 2016 at 14:02, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>
wrote:
> - Nominated by the Core Team (there’s no direct LLVM equivalent, as there’s
no elected leadership of the LLVM project)
I'd trust an elected leadership to nominate *some* people...

> - Respected individuals coopted from outside of the community (to ensure
that we are not producing an echo chamber - imagine a CoC committee drawn from
LKML contributors to see how badly things could go if you don’t do this)
This can also go the wrong way. Bringing people with different
mindsets can alter how our community behaves, destroying what we all
agree is the (close to) perfect balance.

cheers,
--renato

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Renato Golin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> To: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 7:44:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM
code of conduct
> 
> On 5 May 2016 at 13:23, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
wrote:
> > Is the list PG, PG-13, R or at what level do "we" adults all
> > consider
> > "ok". Even on broadcast tv (in the US) you'll hear some
profanity.
> > (context)
> >
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts
> 
> Excellent context!
> 
> 
> > Some people have pointed out that they don't like the R-rated
style
> > of
> > the LKML. Profanity and no holds barred just isn't for some
people.
> > I
> > can respect that, but personally I find it more funny and
> > raw/honest.
> 
> I don't care much about the swearing like "s***, I broke the bots
> again", but I understand not everyone is like that, so I avoid to the
> best of my abilities.
> 
> I can easily cope with "this code is a piece of s***", because
> sometimes it really is. Some people take it personal, though, so it's
> best if we all always avoid that kind of talk.
> 
> But there's nothing dubious about: "you are a piece of s*** for
> writing this code". That is totally unacceptable.
I'd strongly prefer that we have a "no public profanity" policy
here. The fact that this community maintains a professional decorum is essential
to being able to treat community interaction as an expected part of LLVM-related
work activities. Otherwise, to name one problem, such expectations might run
afoul of laws and regulations governing the workplace environment. Yes, some
profanity is benign, but I see no definitive way to draw that line, and frankly,
there are no situations where it is required.

 -Hal
 
> Now, encoding this in the CoC is the hard part...
> 
> 
> > In the world there exists arbitrators/moderators - Why not define a
> > couple of "adults" who have demonstrated a history of strong
and
> > reasonable character. People who can defuse situations and
> > basically
> > be the guy which "we" trust to make good decisions. Elect 3
-
> > something pops up... we go to them to make a decision or help fix
> > stuff. It's low volume so shouldn't be a burden.. they would
likely
> > help out anyway..
> 
> That's another point I had forgotten.
> 
> I don't think the people in this committee should be nominated, but
> voted. This is more than just the LLVM Foundation doing stuff on the
> side, this is out whole community, of which the foundation is only
> part of.
> 
> I feel very strongly about that, even if I trust the people that get
> nominated. Others might not, and that'd be against the very code
> we're
> trying to uphold.
> 
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> 
-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

On 5 May 2016 at 15:41, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>
wrote:
> I'd strongly prefer that we have a "no public profanity"
policy here. The fact that this community maintains a professional decorum is
essential to being able to treat community interaction as an expected part of
LLVM-related work activities. Otherwise, to name one problem, such expectations
might run afoul of laws and regulations governing the workplace environment.
Yes, some profanity is benign, but I see no definitive way to draw that line,
and frankly, there are no situations where it is required.
I think you're going to find that hard to enforce, though. Barring
bots on IRC banning people that talk about some types of birds in the
UK, there isn't much to do with so many cultural backgrounds and word
meanings around the world. It's really hard to get the balance right,
and all who tried, have erred in the side of being too restrictive and
silly.

I have teenager kids at home and I manage their compulsory proxy
server. Believe me, I know how hard it is and I haven't got it right
yet. :)

I personally find a swearing-free derogatory phrase much worse than a
mild swear word of excitement on IRC.

Currently, we do get it right in the LLVM channels, and encoding that
will encourage people to start picking on people when they let it out
on the occasion, which is a much worse behaviour than mild swearing.

cheers,
--renato

I won't disagree about a level of professionalism or what the
community does or doesn't need. However, I'd say that pragmatically if
profanity was an issue in the workplace, for a large development
community, that LKML would have run afoul a long time ago.

My view -
I'm only replying because the reality is that in the workplace
sometimes a full lexicon of words are spoken. I really don't like
being censored just to coddle overly sensitive people. Context...

This big discussion is started, but how will it conclude - would
someone just take action.

I don't like Chanlder's wall of text, because it doesn't seem simple
enough - should I draft up an alternative for review? I'd highly favor
common sense and super simple


On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>
wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Renato Golin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> To: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
>> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 7:44:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM
code of conduct
>>
>> On 5 May 2016 at 13:23, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
wrote:
>> > Is the list PG, PG-13, R or at what level do "we" adults
all
>> > consider
>> > "ok". Even on broadcast tv (in the US) you'll hear
some profanity.
>> > (context)
>> >
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts
>>
>> Excellent context!
>>
>>
>> > Some people have pointed out that they don't like the R-rated
style
>> > of
>> > the LKML. Profanity and no holds barred just isn't for some
people.
>> > I
>> > can respect that, but personally I find it more funny and
>> > raw/honest.
>>
>> I don't care much about the swearing like "s***, I broke the
bots
>> again", but I understand not everyone is like that, so I avoid to
the
>> best of my abilities.
>>
>> I can easily cope with "this code is a piece of s***",
because
>> sometimes it really is. Some people take it personal, though, so
it's
>> best if we all always avoid that kind of talk.
>>
>> But there's nothing dubious about: "you are a piece of s***
for
>> writing this code". That is totally unacceptable.
>
> I'd strongly prefer that we have a "no public profanity"
policy here. The fact that this community maintains a professional decorum is
essential to being able to treat community interaction as an expected part of
LLVM-related work activities. Otherwise, to name one problem, such expectations
might run afoul of laws and regulations governing the workplace environment.
Yes, some profanity is benign, but I see no definitive way to draw that line,
and frankly, there are no situations where it is required.
>
>  -Hal
>
>> Now, encoding this in the CoC is the hard part...
>>
>>
>> > In the world there exists arbitrators/moderators - Why not define
a
>> > couple of "adults" who have demonstrated a history of
strong and
>> > reasonable character. People who can defuse situations and
>> > basically
>> > be the guy which "we" trust to make good decisions.
Elect 3 -
>> > something pops up... we go to them to make a decision or help fix
>> > stuff. It's low volume so shouldn't be a burden.. they
would likely
>> > help out anyway..
>>
>> That's another point I had forgotten.
>>
>> I don't think the people in this committee should be nominated, but
>> voted. This is more than just the LLVM Foundation doing stuff on the
>> side, this is out whole community, of which the foundation is only
>> part of.
>>
>> I feel very strongly about that, even if I trust the people that get
>> nominated. Others might not, and that'd be against the very code
>> we're
>> trying to uphold.
>>
>> cheers,
>> --renato
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Assistant Computational Scientist
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:41 AM Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Renato Golin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> > To: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 7:44:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an
LLVM
> code of conduct
> >
> > On 5 May 2016 at 13:23, C Bergström <cbergstrom at
pathscale.com> wrote:
> > > Is the list PG, PG-13, R or at what level do "we"
adults all
> > > consider
> > > "ok". Even on broadcast tv (in the US) you'll hear
some profanity.
> > > (context)
> > >
>
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts
> >
> > Excellent context!
> >
> >
> > > Some people have pointed out that they don't like the R-rated
style
> > > of
> > > the LKML. Profanity and no holds barred just isn't for some
people.
> > > I
> > > can respect that, but personally I find it more funny and
> > > raw/honest.
> >
> > I don't care much about the swearing like "s***, I broke the
bots
> > again", but I understand not everyone is like that, so I avoid to
the
> > best of my abilities.
> >
> > I can easily cope with "this code is a piece of s***",
because
> > sometimes it really is. Some people take it personal, though, so
it's
> > best if we all always avoid that kind of talk.
> >
> > But there's nothing dubious about: "you are a piece of s***
for
> > writing this code". That is totally unacceptable.
>
> I'd strongly prefer that we have a "no public profanity"
policy here.

I don't think we need an explicit policy here personally. The nice thing is
that if this kind of behavior bothers people, they can ask for it to stop
and cite the code of conduct for why.

I will (somewhat abashedly) admit I have a rather foul mouth. It bothers
some of my co-workers, and I work assiduously to respect that and change my
language when around them. As you point out, it really isn't required to
use profanity and I don't find this in any ways stifles me expressing
sometimes strong and fervent opinions. ;] That said, I have other
co-workers who don't care at all, and when around them I sometimes use
colorful language. The moment it bothers them, I stop.

So for me, the policy is that the moment it bothers someone, I stop. And
IMO, that's what the code of conduct provides. I know there are folks on
the mailing list who would prefer no profanity, and so I work hard to not
use it there.

Fortunately, I have 100% confidence in every single member of the LLVM
community being able to express themselves effectively without the use of
profanity. I've seen all of you do it on numerous occasions.

-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160505/c3f3d9ae/attachment.html>

On 05/05/2016 07:41 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Renato Golin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> To: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
>> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 7:44:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM
code of conduct
>>
>> On 5 May 2016 at 13:23, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
wrote:
>>> Is the list PG, PG-13, R or at what level do "we" adults
all
>>> consider
>>> "ok". Even on broadcast tv (in the US) you'll hear
some profanity.
>>> (context)
>>>
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts
>> Excellent context!
>>
>>
>>> Some people have pointed out that they don't like the R-rated
style
>>> of
>>> the LKML. Profanity and no holds barred just isn't for some
people.
>>> I
>>> can respect that, but personally I find it more funny and
>>> raw/honest.
>> I don't care much about the swearing like "s***, I broke the
bots
>> again", but I understand not everyone is like that, so I avoid to
the
>> best of my abilities.
>>
>> I can easily cope with "this code is a piece of s***",
because
>> sometimes it really is. Some people take it personal, though, so
it's
>> best if we all always avoid that kind of talk.
>>
>> But there's nothing dubious about: "you are a piece of s***
for
>> writing this code". That is totally unacceptable.
> I'd strongly prefer that we have a "no public profanity"
policy here. The fact that this community maintains a professional decorum is
essential to being able to treat community interaction as an expected part of
LLVM-related work activities.
I'd disagree.  I certainly try not to swear publicly on a regular basis, 
but utterly banning it seems like an over reaction.  Swearing at someone 
is certainly inappropriate and would clearly violate the proposed CoC, 
but that's due to the personal attack aspect, not the wording.

To me, this sounds like a change in community norms rather than an 
endorsement of our existing ones.  As such, I would strongly argue that 
such a proposal should not be tried up with the CoC and should be 
discussed separately.
> Otherwise, to name one problem, such expectations might run afoul of laws
and regulations governing the workplace environment. Yes, some profanity is
benign, but I see no definitive way to draw that line, and frankly, there are no
situations where it is required.
I'm concerned by this argument, more than what you're actually arguing 
for.  At the end of the day, we are not going to be able to enforce the 
intersection of every employment law anywhere.  In particular, many of 
them are directly contradictory.  I don't want to see us start trying.  
I think that would be a major mistake.
>
>   -Hal
>   
>> Now, encoding this in the CoC is the hard part...
>>
>>
>>> In the world there exists arbitrators/moderators - Why not define a
>>> couple of "adults" who have demonstrated a history of
strong and
>>> reasonable character. People who can defuse situations and
>>> basically
>>> be the guy which "we" trust to make good decisions. Elect
3 -
>>> something pops up... we go to them to make a decision or help fix
>>> stuff. It's low volume so shouldn't be a burden.. they
would likely
>>> help out anyway..
>> That's another point I had forgotten.
>>
>> I don't think the people in this committee should be nominated, but
>> voted. This is more than just the LLVM Foundation doing stuff on the
>> side, this is out whole community, of which the foundation is only
>> part of.
>>
>> I feel very strongly about that, even if I trust the people that get
>> nominated. Others might not, and that'd be against the very code
>> we're
>> trying to uphold.
>>
>> cheers,
>> --renato
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>