llvm dev - Oct 2015 - RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:35:07PM -0400, Aaron Ballman via llvm-dev
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > On 13 October 2015 at 16:41, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>> - *Be welcoming.* We strive to be a community that welcomes
and supports
> >>> people of all backgrounds and identities. This includes, but
is not limited
> >>> to members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin,
colour,
> >>> immigration status, social and economic class, educational
level, sex,
> >>> sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size,
family
> >>> status, political belief, religion
> >>
> >> How about "religion or lack thereof"? I know it can be
understood to
> >> be implicit, but as an atheist I tend feel a bit left out of
> >> statements like that.
> >
> > +1!!!!
> >
> > Well, since we're being picky... :D
> >
> > race: last time I checked, we're all members of the same race,
homo
> > sapiens sapiens.
> > national origin vs. immigration status: the former is already covered
> > by "culture" for everything that matters, the latter is very
specific
> > to one culture.
> > social "class": this is too Marxist*, we should use
"social status",
> > since everything is blurred nowadays.
> > family status: really?!
> > sexual orientation vs. sex vs gender identity and expression: what?!
> 
> sexual orientation != sex != gender identity and expression, so
> personally, I am in favor of this (though I feel like sex could be
> dropped due to the gender identity clause).
Hi Aaron,
Over the years, these definitions have been in flux.

My current understanding is sexual orientation refers to the concepts of being
celibate or heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual. Gender identity refers to a
continuous spectrum of conditions relating to one's perception of being male
or
female or somewhere in between those two ends of the gender spectrum. And so I
believe sexual orientation and gender identity are distinct concepts without any
connotation of redundancy associated with them.

One point that is very often misunderstood by the general population is that
sexual orientation is referenced to the individual's gender identity. In
real
life, that can be confusing.

For another point of view, see:
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-terminology-and-definitions

Adapt and thrive,
Karen
> 
> > size: really? is this the PC version of "weight"?
> >
> > * I don't mean "socialist", nor "communist",
but I mean the strict
> > division of classes.
> >
> > cheers,
> > --renato
> >
> > PS: I hope you all understand that I mean no offence. I may have to
> > put that as my signature from now on, though, or risk being kicked out
> > without notice... :)
> 
> lol
> 
> ~Aaron
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
--- end quoted text ---

-- 
Karen Shaeffer                 Be aware: If you see an obstacle in your path,
Neuralscape Services           that obstacle is your path.        Zen proverb

On 13 October 2015 at 18:01, Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer at neuralscape.com>
wrote:
> One point that is very often misunderstood by the general population is
that
> sexual orientation is referenced to the individual's gender identity.
In real
> life, that can be confusing.
So, normally, you'd refer to all sex-gender-related problems as
"gender" or "sex".

The problem is the need to expand in minute details of one problem,
"gender", and not the others, for example, "culture".
It's just like
this because of people's sensitivity to one topic *where* the text was
written, than the other topics, which could be much bigger in other
parts of the world.

I can think of more problems in putting everything under "culture"
than under "gender". Examples include gun ownership, death penalty,
slave labour, cast based society, imposed clothing, imposed body
mutilation, etc. All of those give rise to *very* different
discussions in diverse social groups, and you can find "socially
acceptable" people around the world that accept at least one of those,
or any combination.

I don't think we want to go there for *any* case. A simple way out is
to say: "opinions have to be based in technical merits". Which is
basically what the BSD code of conduct does very well.

cheers,
--renato

Shouldn't that be "asexual" as opposed to "celibate"? I
thought the former term refers to the a sexual orientation, while the latter to,
for the lack of a better term, sexual practice.
That is, one can be, say, a celibate heterosexual, for example for religious
reasons.
Or can the terms be used synonymously?

(Sorry for going so far off-topic...)
> My current understanding is sexual orientation refers to the concepts of
> being celibate or heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

> (Sorry for going so far off-topic...)
It's pretty obvious that the detailed enumeration of things not to be
discriminated against is a huge rathole, and the correct fix is to
remove it from the CoC.
--paulr

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 06:18:49PM +0100, Renato Golin
wrote:
> On 13 October 2015 at 18:01, Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer at
neuralscape.com> wrote:
> > One point that is very often misunderstood by the general population
is that
> > sexual orientation is referenced to the individual's gender
identity. In real
> > life, that can be confusing.
> 
> So, normally, you'd refer to all sex-gender-related problems as
> "gender" or "sex".
> 
> The problem is the need to expand in minute details of one problem,
> "gender", and not the others, for example, "culture".
It's just like
> this because of people's sensitivity to one topic *where* the text was
> written, than the other topics, which could be much bigger in other
> parts of the world.
> 
> I can think of more problems in putting everything under
"culture"
> than under "gender". Examples include gun ownership, death
penalty,
> slave labour, cast based society, imposed clothing, imposed body
> mutilation, etc. All of those give rise to *very* different
> discussions in diverse social groups, and you can find "socially
> acceptable" people around the world that accept at least one of those,
> or any combination.
> 
> I don't think we want to go there for *any* case. A simple way out is
> to say: "opinions have to be based in technical merits". Which is
> basically what the BSD code of conduct does very well.
> 
> cheers,
> --renato
Hi Renato,
I believe a technical email list code of conduct should be entirely focused on
the technical content of communications and the contextual tone of
communications. Any reference to any personal attributes of list participants
should be out of bounds. Such a broad rule inclusively accounts for all
subgroups of people, without any need to get into the gory details of a life.

In practice, there are always corner cases. As of January 1, 2009, the
Americans with Disabilities Act has been amended to protect individual's
suffering a whole range of mental disabilities. These disabilities often result
in limitations in the individual's ability to communicate effectively. The
contextual tone of such an individual's communications could be
misinterpreted.
In such a case, list administrators ought to investigate to see if such an
individual has special circumstances warranting reasonable accommodation.

Adapt and thrive,
Karen
-- 
Karen Shaeffer                 Be aware: If you see an obstacle in your path,
Neuralscape Services           that obstacle is your path.        Zen proverb

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:25:42PM +0000, Kuperstein, Michael M
wrote:
> Shouldn't that be "asexual" as opposed to
"celibate"? I thought the former term refers to the a sexual
orientation, while the latter to, for the lack of a better term, sexual
practice.
> That is, one can be, say, a celibate heterosexual, for example for
religious reasons.
> Or can the terms be used synonymously?
Hi Michael,
I'm no expert. I stand corrected.

Thanks for your comment.
Karen
-- 
Karen Shaeffer                 Be aware: If you see an obstacle in your path,
Neuralscape Services           that obstacle is your path.        Zen proverb