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

Am 06.05.2016 um 01:26 schrieb Tanya Lattner via
llvm-dev:
>
> There are
> many many people who aren’t even commenting at all because they fear
> being attacked in this thread.
Now you're contradicting LLVM's own description that it's a friendly
community.

Also:
How many is "many, many", actually? How many of these are really in 
fear, how many are just trying to impose their mindset without actually 
planning to contribute in earnest, how many are so fearful that they 
should really seek professional help?

 > There are many who aren’t responding
> because they agree we need one and just want this thing done and
> don’t want to talk about it anymore.
Well, I can imagine that those who want to push in that direction don't 
want the opposition.
> I don’t think we will agree about the need for a code of conduct. I
> just don’t see it happening. Its not a US versus everywhere else
> thing. All of the issues the code of conduct touches on are universal
> across everywhere.
Harassment is indeed universal.
The ideas about how to best deal that with are not.

 > I feel strongly that we need a code of conduct for
> the strength, health, and future of our community and I don’t see
> anything in Chandler’s draft that makes me feel concerned.
The essence of that argument is that since you don't feel concerns, 
nobody else should.
I do not think I'll follow that.

 > Is it
> wordy and long? Maybe a little.
Actually it seems to be improving, but from my perspective, it's still 
far too overspecific and too easily abused.
Note that my concerns are different from Renatos: Renato fears a power 
grab by the enforcement committee, I fear that regardless of how the 
committee is elected the whole thing is open to degeneration.

 > But, I think it represents the
> people of this community and the respect we have for each other.
In that case, we wouldn't need a code of conduct at all.

There's an inconsistency here.
This "the respect we have for each other" bit is in line with the 
argument that the CoC's purpose is to keep things the way they are. 
Above, you said that people have fear of speaking up, which is a pretty 
strong contradiction.
It's one of those things that make alarms go off.

 > If
> we find out we were wrong, then we can make changes to it as we go.
> Nothing is ever set in stone and you learn through experience.
*shrug* I have had experience with that kind of approach. With codes of 
conduct, set up with the best of intentions, and in the end, people just 
chose to ignore them.
> I was referring to the goal of showing outsiders what our community
> is like and showing it is an indeed a safe and inviting place for
> everyone.
A self-description is as conclusive as any code of conduct.
It's not the text that counts, whether it's enforceable or not; what 
counts is what's actually happening, and no text will change much of that.

BTW the community shouldn't describe itself.

Aww dammit. I'm writing far too much on that topic. Again.
Ah well.

> On May 5, 2016, at 5:55 PM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Am 06.05.2016 um 01:26 schrieb Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev:
>> 
>> There are
>> many many people who aren’t even commenting at all because they fear
>> being attacked in this thread.
> 
> Now you're contradicting LLVM's own description that it's a
friendly community.
> 
> Also:
> How many is "many, many", actually? How many of these are really
in fear, how many are just trying to impose their mindset without actually
planning to contribute in earnest, how many are so fearful that they should
really seek professional help?
And this is illustrating my point. I don’t really appreciate the joke about
seeking professional help. Given how many hundreds of community members we have,
and there are maybe 30 responding on this thread? I have spoken to many more at
LLVM Dev Meetings who are in favor of a Code of Conduct and I suspect many are
fearful of responding here.
> 
> > There are many who aren’t responding
>> because they agree we need one and just want this thing done and
>> don’t want to talk about it anymore.
> 
> Well, I can imagine that those who want to push in that direction don't
want the opposition.
> 
>> I don’t think we will agree about the need for a code of conduct. I
>> just don’t see it happening. Its not a US versus everywhere else
>> thing. All of the issues the code of conduct touches on are universal
>> across everywhere.
> 
> Harassment is indeed universal.
> The ideas about how to best deal that with are not.
> 
I’m pretty positive that harassment of any kind should not be tolerated or
allowed. I’m not sure how there can be different ideas on how to deal with it.

-Tanya
> > I feel strongly that we need a code of conduct for
>> the strength, health, and future of our community and I don’t see
>> anything in Chandler’s draft that makes me feel concerned.
> 
> The essence of that argument is that since you don't feel concerns,
nobody else should.
> I do not think I'll follow that.
> 
> > Is it
>> wordy and long? Maybe a little.
> 
> Actually it seems to be improving, but from my perspective, it's still
far too overspecific and too easily abused.
> Note that my concerns are different from Renatos: Renato fears a power grab
by the enforcement committee, I fear that regardless of how the committee is
elected the whole thing is open to degeneration.
> 
> > But, I think it represents the
>> people of this community and the respect we have for each other.
> 
> In that case, we wouldn't need a code of conduct at all.
> 
> There's an inconsistency here.
> This "the respect we have for each other" bit is in line with the
argument that the CoC's purpose is to keep things the way they are. Above,
you said that people have fear of speaking up, which is a pretty strong
contradiction.
> It's one of those things that make alarms go off.
> 
> > If
>> we find out we were wrong, then we can make changes to it as we go.
>> Nothing is ever set in stone and you learn through experience.
> 
> *shrug* I have had experience with that kind of approach. With codes of
conduct, set up with the best of intentions, and in the end, people just chose
to ignore them.
> 
>> I was referring to the goal of showing outsiders what our community
>> is like and showing it is an indeed a safe and inviting place for
>> everyone.
> 
> A self-description is as conclusive as any code of conduct.
> It's not the text that counts, whether it's enforceable or not;
what counts is what's actually happening, and no text will change much of
that.
> 
> BTW the community shouldn't describe itself.
> 
> Aww dammit. I'm writing far too much on that topic. Again.
> Ah well.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 22:21, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> How many is "many, many", actually? How many of these are
really in fear, how many are just trying to impose their mindset without
actually planning to contribute in earnest, how many are so fearful that they
should really seek professional help?
>
> And this is illustrating my point. I don’t really appreciate the joke about
seeking professional help. Given how many hundreds of community members we have,
and there are maybe 30 responding on this thread? I have spoken to many more at
LLVM Dev Meetings who are in favor of a Code of Conduct and I suspect many are
fearful of responding here.
I don't think this was a joke at all...

>> Harassment is indeed universal.
>> The ideas about how to best deal that with are not.
>
> I’m pretty positive that harassment of any kind should not be tolerated or
allowed.
> I’m not sure how there can be different ideas on how to deal with it.
I'm confused...

Are you implying that everyone will agree on exactly what is and what
is not harassment? And consequently they'll also agree on exactly how
to deal with each individual situation?

I know you understand that there are different situations (you have
said as much), but this makes me think that you're assuming that
everyone should agree with your analysis of every case.

This obviously goes against any attempt to either be inclusive or
extend our community, and would, in my view, go against the proposed
CoC.

cheers,
--renato