llvm dev - Jul 2016 - [Openmp-dev] [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org]
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 2:52 PM
> To: Daniel Berlin
> Cc: Robinson, Paul; llvm-dev; LLDB; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; openmp-dev
> (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org); Rafael Espíndola
> Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial
> draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct
> 
> On 1 July 2016 at 18:32, Daniel Berlin via lldb-dev
> <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> The single word "rare" in the current code doesn't
feel like enough.
> >
> > I don't actually disagree with your criticism, IMHO, i just
don't know
> of a
> > way to generate more clarity.
> 
> Paul, Rafael, Daniel,
> 
> With the intention of being pragmatic and getting the draft out
> (remember, it's *still* a draft), would having Daniel's new
proposal
> more comfortable?
> 
> "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in
> rare cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when
> the conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the community's
> social standard."
Daniel claimed it was not different, even though he proposed the text.
I think it is better, as "egregious" (even though it is qualitative)
helps identify what "rare" circumstances would come under the policy.
As a non-lawyer I do think it's different.

Yes I would be happier with that added, although it might not be enough
for everyone who is unhappy with the code as-is.
Thanks,
--paulr
> 
> If so, than I'd hope we could get this through and start discussing
> the second part, the reporting and committee formation, which I think
> it's much more important than the code itself.
> 
> cheers,
> --renato

On 4 July 2016 at 00:42, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
wrote:
> Daniel claimed it was not different, even though he proposed the text.
> I think it is better, as "egregious" (even though it is
qualitative)
> helps identify what "rare" circumstances would come under the
policy.
> As a non-lawyer I do think it's different.
I personally agree with you, both on helping identify "rare" (as what,
not when), and for easing non-lawyers minds.

cheers,
--renato

>From my perspective:
Do whatever makes y'all happy here :)


On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 4 July 2016 at 00:42, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
wrote:
> > Daniel claimed it was not different, even though he proposed the text.
> > I think it is better, as "egregious" (even though it is
qualitative)
> > helps identify what "rare" circumstances would come under
the policy.
> > As a non-lawyer I do think it's different.
>
> I personally agree with you, both on helping identify "rare" (as
what,
> not when), and for easing non-lawyers minds.
>
> cheers,
> --renato
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160704/0c8b1247/attachment.html>

On 4 Jul 2016, at 12:27, Renato Golin via Openmp-dev <openmp-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On 4 July 2016 at 00:42, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
wrote:
>> Daniel claimed it was not different, even though he proposed the text.
>> I think it is better, as "egregious" (even though it is
qualitative)
>> helps identify what "rare" circumstances would come under the
policy.
>> As a non-lawyer I do think it's different.
> 
> I personally agree with you, both on helping identify "rare" (as
what,
> not when), and for easing non-lawyers minds.
The simplest solution would probably be to have a separate advisory document
listing informally examples of things that would and wouldn’t be covered by the
CoC.  For example:

Stalking a member of the LLVM community: Covered.

Inciting harassment of a member of the LLVM community in social media: Covered

Sending rude emails to a member of the LLVM community with whom you have a
relationship outside of the project: Probably not covered, unless it’s directly
related to LLVM

Some example that people are worried would constitute overreach: Not covered

Some other examples that people are concerned must be covered: Covered

This document would provide guidance for the CoC enforcement committee, but
would not be part of the official CoC.

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/20160706/0df25b51/attachment.bin>