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

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

> On May 6, 2016, at 2:35 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> 
> 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?
No. He said there were different ideas of how to deal with harassment. I said
that I disagree that it should not be tolerated or allowed.

There was no discussion about what is or is not harassment. 

If you want to talk about that point, I can tell you my thoughts. I feel that
the code of conduct should have explicit examples of types of harassment (such
as the ones that are in there). That removes some ambiguity about certain
issues. There are obviously going to be many things that don’t fall into those
categories and its up to the community/committee to decide if it is harassment.
Someone has to make a decision at some point if a decision is needed. But I like
what is in the CoC drafted at the moment and feel it covers most topics.

From the Ada Initiative
(https://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/)
they write:
The major weapon of harassers is arguing whether something is actually
harassing. It is difficult to enforce a CoC if you have to have a month long
nasty argument about whether it was violated. It burns out people like you.

It encourages people to report when they are certain they will be taken
seriously and not dismissed or argued with.

The list of “don’ts” educates people on what to do, so you avoid problems in the
first place.

Finally, it sends a signal to people considering joining your community in a way
that “be nice” does not. “Be nice” is a signal to harassers that they can use
tone arguments and otherwise play on people’s desires to be nice to get away
with stuff.For example, Wikipedia’s “Assume good faith” is regularly abused by
people not acting in good faith. Asking people to attempt resolution by
discussion is used both as a delaying tactic and a way to abuse people longer.

They also say: A related point is that sometimes it is the argument over whether
something is harassment that makes people leave, not the harassment itself.


-Tanya
> 
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/055f4d8b/attachment-0001.html>

On 6 May 2016 at 22:57, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org>
wrote:
> The major weapon of harassers is arguing whether something is actually
> harassing. It is difficult to enforce a CoC if you have to have a month
long
> nasty argument about whether it was violated. It burns out people like you.
The major weapon about enforcers is *not* wanting to argue.

Harassment is a very complicated issue that involves not only actions
but points of view.

For instance, you thought Joachim was joking, I didn't. If he was
joking, that would have been very bad taste. If he was not, that would
have been a perfectly valid and non aggressive way to understanding
the range of your statement.

Depending on your *point of view*, from that point forwards, things
would roll down in completely opposite paths.

If you don't discuss what is and what isn't harassment, or if you're
not prepared to understand that communications will breakdown very
easily, then you're taking an extremist point of view in regards to
the code and giving every one that has had fears so far, the right to
do so. I'm not saying *you* are, but that is the consequence if you
(or anyone else) would have been.

Now, assuming that he was joking, that would have been bad, but how
bad? It would depend on how many times it happened in the past (serial
offender, see the autism page I shared earlier), or if the affected
person asked him to stop and he didn't, or if he did this on the list
or out of it, etc. Those are all parts of the spectrum of harassment,
and they have to be dealt with in *very* different ways.

If we advocate on our CoC that we do not take a spectrum approach to
harassment, and that some unnamed people are the ones that choose what
is harassment and what is not, than you're telling all prospective
members that we essentially don't care about their opinions and their
behaviours will be monitored and potentially curbed at our own
discretion.

One may think it's ok to do that to potential offenders, but you
cannot tell who is an offender and who is not just by looking at which
T-Shirt they're wearing. Doing so is the most classic form of
prejudice.

I personally do not see this as the role of the CoC, and from my
conversations with Chandler and others on this list and the review,
this is not what they are thinking either. I'd rather deal with
offenders *after* they have offended than risking have my prejudice
affect the quality of the tools I build. It would also show how
efficient our process is against harassment.


cheers,
--renato