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

On 05/06/2016 11:03 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote:
>
>
> On 5/6/16 11:43 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05/06/2016 09:02 AM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>>> Say what you want about the Linux kernel community, but you
can't
>>>>> call
>>>>> it immature. You can call the behaviour of some of its
people
>>>>> immature, but the community itself is not by a long shot.
>>>> But there are reasonable people who will not interact with that
>>>> community because they find that community's acceptance of
offensive
>>>> behavior unacceptable. I certainly don't want to see that
happen here.
>>> That cuts both ways. I have in the past posted in my facebook
account
>>> articles from the onion that some people would consider offensive.
If
>>> you don't like it, don't read the onion or be friends with
me on
>>> facebook.
>>>
>>> I have been working on llvm since 2006 and according to the code of
>>> conduct I would now be liable to being banned from working on llvm
>>> because of sharing a satirical news.
>> I think it's fair to say everyone involved in this discussion would
find
>> that a ridiculous conclusion.  I personally am not too worried by the
>> current wording, but are there particular changes which would set your
>> mind at ease?  Several folks have raised concerns about the section
>> which reads "In addition, violations of this code outside these
spaces
>> may affect a person's ability to participate within them."  Is
that the
>> one that gives you pause?   Or is there more? Pointing to specific
>> pieces of wording would be really helpful here.
>>
>> FYI, several folks have expressed specific concern about that
particular
>> wording.  If we can find wording which rephrases that to address the
>> concern while retaining the intent, that seems like an obvious thing to
>> fix.
>
> What /is/ the intent of that particular phrase?
I think this has been covered elsewhere, but let me hit a couple of what 
I see as key cases:
1) Person A makes a documented serious physical threat against Person B 
who is a member of the LLVM community.  Person A does not then get to 
come into the community and continue harassing Person B.  We can and 
could say Person A is not welcome; at minimum, all of Person A's 
communications should be moderated.
2) Person A has multiple convictions for sexual assault or other violent 
crime.  Person A does not get to attend LLVM events.
3) Person A (an existing LLVM contributor) takes a technical discussion 
from LLVM with Person B into an alternate channel so as to personally 
attack person B without being subject to CoC. Workaround does not work, 
still a violation of CoC.
4) Person A uses CoC to attack Person B based on Person B's stated 
political views in an outside venue.  Person B has always followed CoC 
in LLVM interactions and has keep personal politics separate. Person A 
(who may not even be a member of the community) could be found in 
violation of the CoC and banned from our spaces.

Just to be clear, my (3,4) are of a substantially different form and 
severity than (1,2).   And, as always, I speak only for myself.

>
>
> Jon
>
>>>
>>> Again, I don't doubt the good intentions of the people working
on
>>> this, but as written this is one of the most terrifying documents I
>>> have seen.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rafael
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>

On 6 May 2016 at 19:16, Philip Reames via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 1) Person A makes a documented serious physical threat against Person B who
> is a member of the LLVM community.  Person A does not then get to come into
> the community and continue harassing Person B.  We can and could say Person
> A is not welcome; at minimum, all of Person A's communications should
be
> moderated.
Are we proposing actively singling out people in our community? This
doesn't scale and is just plain offensive. "Serious" is a matter
of
perspective.

> 2) Person A has multiple convictions for sexual assault or other violent
> crime.  Person A does not get to attend LLVM events.
Are we proposing background checks for participating on our community?
This could have so many legal problems in so many countries...

> 3) Person A (an existing LLVM contributor) takes a technical discussion
from
> LLVM with Person B into an alternate channel so as to personally attack
> person B without being subject to CoC. Workaround does not work, still a
> violation of CoC.
I wonder how much powerless are we, today, to deal with that.

We already have the power to moderate, ban, and publicly denounce people.

We already have to power to revoke commit access, revert patches,
unlink buildbots.

And we already can do that with no explanations necessary, but we can
always add explanations by email.

I don't think in such a case, many people would complain, either.

cheers,
--renato

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 6 May 2016 at 19:16, Philip Reames via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > 1) Person A makes a documented serious physical threat against Person
B
> who
> > is a member of the LLVM community.  Person A does not then get to come
> into
> > the community and continue harassing Person B.  We can and could say
> Person
> > A is not welcome; at minimum, all of Person A's communications
should be
> > moderated.
>
> Are we proposing actively singling out people in our community? This
> doesn't scale and is just plain offensive. "Serious" is a
matter of
> perspective.
>
>
> > 2) Person A has multiple convictions for sexual assault or other
violent
> > crime.  Person A does not get to attend LLVM events.
>
> Are we proposing background checks for participating on our community?
> This could have so many legal problems in so many countries...
>
>
> > 3) Person A (an existing LLVM contributor) takes a technical
discussion
> from
> > LLVM with Person B into an alternate channel so as to personally
attack
> > person B without being subject to CoC. Workaround does not work, still
a
> > violation of CoC.
>
> I wonder how much powerless are we, today, to deal with that.
>
> We already have the power to moderate, ban, and publicly denounce people.
>
> We already have to power to revoke commit access, revert patches,
> unlink buildbots.
>
> And we already can do that with no explanations necessary, but we can
> always add explanations by email.
>
> I don't think in such a case, many people would complain, either.
>
This isn't just about what we can do today, but about explaining it to
people who haven't seen us do it/don't know what the community norms
are.
So that when evaluating which communities they might want to be involved
in, they have some confidence that this one might be compatible with their
comfort/needs/etc.

Also sets expectations better for members of the community (yes, there's
still lots of room for good judgment on the part of the community, those
who handle CoC issues, etc so that a lawyerly approach to the rules doesn't
actually get you very far) so people are less likely to be caught by
surprise. Not impossible, but to reduce the chance.

- Dave

>
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160506/03c53640/attachment-0001.html>