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

On 13 October 2015 at 17:09, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
wrote:
> I assume the end objective of such  a policy is to have more effective
> communications, so it would be nice to have some examples to avoid it
> instead hampering communications by pushing unnecessary political
> correctness.
+2!!!

> * Small, on the side jokes are OK if people are not offended. I don't
> think any Canadian is offended by "Canadian Cross compiler". If I
am
> wrong, complain. Assume an honest mistake instead of intention to
> offend.
You mean the cross compiler that instead of saying "error:" says,
"sorry sir, you may have made a mistake here:"?

> * In a similar case, "cargo cult" refers to a set of existing
beliefs.
> Using that in the context of software development is not intended as
> an offence to, for example, any llvm developer that believes in John
> Frum.
I have no idea what that is, but I find it interesting that Google
renamed "bro" to "br" for the compression file because
"bro" was too
"offensive". I found "bro" quite ingenuous.

> * Probably most important, terseness in relevant comments about *code*
> is OK. Saying that something is "wrong", "undesirable"
or "broken" is
> clearest way to convey that information.
+1

I'll add another point that a friend just made about this subject:

* Calling out bad behaviour on people is a way to invoke self-reflect,
not to offend. If I say you're being coercive, it's probably because I
felt pushed without technical reasons, so you may need to evaluate
your behaviour, instead of calling out "bad word!" and applying the
code of conduct to ban me.

If we create rules for *apparent* abusive behaviour but don't take
into account for the *implicit* ones, we will end up punishing the
wrong people.

I always though of the LLVM community as relaxed and understanding,
and to see that we *need* such strict rules makes me sad... I was
still hoping we didn't...

cheers,
--renato

Am 13.10.2015 um 18:34 schrieb Renato Golin via
llvm-dev:
> I have no idea what that is, but I find it interesting that Google
> renamed "bro" to "br" for the compression file because
"bro" was too
> "offensive". I found "bro" quite ingenuous.
Not because it was offensive, but because they wanted to avoid having to 
discuss it at all.
Which is quite reasonable actually.
> * Calling out bad behaviour on people is a way to invoke self-reflect,
> not to offend.
Problem is that it's very hard to word that calling out in a way that is 
not offensive.
With a Code of Conduct is in place, the stakes are even higher for the 
accused one.
> If we create rules for *apparent* abusive behaviour but don't take
> into account for the *implicit* ones, we will end up punishing the
> wrong people.
This can happen, too. Some people are masters at that point of turning 
one's word against oneself, and you have to trace every exchange back to 
its beginning to see where the abuse started.
> I always though of the LLVM community as relaxed and understanding,
> and to see that we *need* such strict rules makes me sad... I was
> still hoping we didn't...
Actually I don't think the LLVM community does. It's just too easy to 
get carried away when drawing up a set of rules - just remember the last 
time when you designed an API and later found it's totally overspecific. 
Permission systems are another area that's particularly prone to this 
kind of overspecification.

On 13 October 2015 at 19:22, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Not because it was offensive, but because they wanted to avoid having to
> discuss it at all. Which is quite reasonable actually.
This is the reason why (copyright/patent/general) trolls exist. I
don't think it's reasonable at all.

> Problem is that it's very hard to word that calling out in a way that
is not
> offensive. With a Code of Conduct is in place, the stakes are even higher
for the
> accused one.
Which discourages such important reminders.

> Actually I don't think the LLVM community does. It's just too easy
to get
> carried away when drawing up a set of rules - just remember the last time
> when you designed an API and later found it's totally overspecific.
> Permission systems are another area that's particularly prone to this
kind
> of overspecification.
That's a very distilled version of my feelings towards this spec.
Over-specified, over-reaching, not entirely relevant.

cheers,
--renato