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

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:16 AM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 13 October 2015 at 18:59, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > We have *not* appointed any such committee at this point.
> > (...)
> > The appeal is to the board of the Foundation. I don't expect the
board to
> > *be* the committee here, quite the opposite.
>
> This doesn't solve the problem. If the foundation appoints the
> committee, appeals to the foundation are still open for abuse.
>
> Only democratic and transparent processes can work in this fashion,
> and I don't see the foundation as being either.
>
>
> > I don't think that their job will be to impose moral authority, I
think
> the
> > code of conduct is the basis they would be required to cite for any
> > decision. Their role should be much more focused on understanding what
> has
> > happened, and ensuring it is responded to. I also think that is called
> out
> > in the document.
>
> So why the need to list the punishments and make sure that only
> capital punishments can actually be appealed?
>
For some of the reasons we at least need to make it clear the scope:
http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/

>
>
> > I'm surprised and saddened to hear you say this. I also don't
> particularly
> > agree. I have interacted with almost every member of the foundation
> board as
> > a regular course of interacting with the community. The foundation is
> > completely handling the planning and running of the developer's
meeting.
> > Certainly, we're still in the infancy of figuring this stuff out,
but I
> > don't see a problematic lack of engagement.
>
> Apart from the great work Tanya is doing with the LLVM meetings, I
> don't absolutely anything coming from the foundation. Can you
> elaborate?
>
We are actively working on infrastructure issues (note the move to new
mailing list servers?) and issues around licensing (the discussions we have
had before about CLA).

But *none* of this belongs in this thread.

I'm very happy to have a discussion of how the foundation can (and IMO
should!) be more transparent and effective. I would also love to see other
discussions about the foundation. We even have a BoF dedicated to such
discussions at the developer's meeting.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/98c16b21/attachment.html>

On 13 October 2015 at 19:30, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
wrote:
> For some of the reasons we at least need to make it clear the scope:
>
http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/
Seems like a very personal opinion, and most things in there are
relevant to physical gatherings, only scratching the surface of
virtual communities. I don't think that should be canon to anything we
do, including the special emphasis on physical harassment and
unilateral harsh consequences. These are critical to solving physical
altercations, yes, but on the list or IRC? On our conferences? On our
socials? Really?

If we're just preparing for the future, maybe we should also consider
how a potential zombie apocalypses would offend brain-loving people
today.

The concept of harassment includes verbal, mental, physical, logical,
or anything else that still doesn't exist, we don't need to be
specific. Someone said earlier, the more specific we are now, the more
we'll argue about it. We don't need that.

I also don't understand why specifically the Django CoC is so
important for us to follow.

cheers,
--renato

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 13 October 2015 at 19:30, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com> wrote:
>> For some of the reasons we at least need to make it clear the scope:
>>
http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/
>
> Seems like a very personal opinion, and most things in there are
> relevant to physical gatherings, only scratching the surface of
> virtual communities. I don't think that should be canon to anything we
> do, including the special emphasis on physical harassment and
> unilateral harsh consequences. These are critical to solving physical
> altercations, yes, but on the list or IRC? On our conferences? On our
> socials? Really?
>
> If we're just preparing for the future, maybe we should also consider
> how a potential zombie apocalypses would offend brain-loving people
> today.
I don't think this is a particularly constructive way to continue this
conversation.
> The concept of harassment includes verbal, mental, physical, logical,
> or anything else that still doesn't exist, we don't need to be
> specific. Someone said earlier, the more specific we are now, the more
> we'll argue about it. We don't need that.
You say "we", but I'm certain that you don't mean to speak for
everyone. I, for one, am glad that the LLVM Foundation is putting in
these efforts to make a CoC. Others have expressed similar sentiments.
I think our community does need one, and I think the one that has been
proposed is a good starting point for conversation.

~Aaron
>
> I also don't understand why specifically the Django CoC is so
> important for us to follow.
>
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:20:33PM +0100, Renato Golin via llvm-dev
wrote:
> On 13 October 2015 at 19:30, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com> wrote:
> > For some of the reasons we at least need to make it clear the scope:
> >
http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/
> 
> Seems like a very personal opinion, and most things in there are
> relevant to physical gatherings, only scratching the surface of
> virtual communities. I don't think that should be canon to anything we
> do, including the special emphasis on physical harassment and
> unilateral harsh consequences. These are critical to solving physical
> altercations, yes, but on the list or IRC? On our conferences? On our
> socials? Really?
> 
> If we're just preparing for the future, maybe we should also consider
> how a potential zombie apocalypses would offend brain-loving people
> today.
> 
> The concept of harassment includes verbal, mental, physical, logical,
> or anything else that still doesn't exist, we don't need to be
> specific. Someone said earlier, the more specific we are now, the more
> we'll argue about it. We don't need that.
> 
> I also don't understand why specifically the Django CoC is so
> important for us to follow.
> 
> cheers,
> --renato
Hi Renato,
I sense you feel passionate about this issue. I read the Django CoC. And I
personally do not feel there is anything in there that is overarching nor
exclusionary. I don't think such a CoC would limit reasonable expression on
this list nor more generally in the LLVM community in any way. And it clearly
invites all individuals to feel welcome. I'm trying to understand what your
specific objections are.

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