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

On 14 October 2015 at 20:35, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Related specifically to the developers meeting, we are growing quite
> rapidly. For the past few years, we have been increasing our attendance
from
> 50 at the start to now over 350 attendees. With this many people (and many
> new to the community), it seems important to have a code of conduct to
refer
> to and possibly *prevent* any incidents from happening. And for some people
> (not sure exact percentage), it makes them feel more comfortable attending
a
> conference that has a code of conduct.
Just an honest and simple question: would it make sense to have a
different code of conduct for meetings and the rest?

I know it sounds like a bad idea, but my rationale is that maybe this
would at least solve some of the points that socially inept people
feel pressure on the current proposal.

Because the consequences of a physical meeting can be a lot tougher
than any electronic one, and because timing is of the essence, the
wording *has* to be stronger and an executive decision has to be
implemented.

But such strong wording and harsh unappealable consequences do make
us, of the anti-social variety, very frightened. We grew in a world
that never made sense, and we have suffered our childhoods and
adulthoods in constant fear of irrational (to our minds) reprimands.
This is not a simple matter, it's quite real and have made me
seriously consider many times leaving the open source realm for good.
I have left jobs and regressed in my career because of things like
that.
>From the very wording in the proposed CoC, we don't want to leave
anyone behind, including physical and mental disabilities. If that's
true, and we really mean it, than imposing such a harsh CoC from the
majority of opinions is exactly the opposite of that. People like me
are clearly not the majority, the NAS UK estimates 1 every 100 people
in England has some form of autism, but that's the whole point of a
CoC, is to not forget about the people with some form of fragility.

By the replies I've seen so far, there were others that feel the same
way, and I wonder if they're also feeling a little uncomfortable with
the wording.

Disclaimer: This is not personal nor an accusation, I know you
wouldn't do anything to upset anyone. I'm just trying to solve a
problem that I can see people have, but can't express without looking
rude. I'm *really* sorry, but we just sound rude, we're not really,
and I do appreciate when people remind me if I slip up.

Just my two cents.

cheers,
--renato

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:02 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 14 October 2015 at 20:35, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > Related specifically to the developers meeting, we are growing quite
> > rapidly. For the past few years, we have been increasing our
attendance
> from
> > 50 at the start to now over 350 attendees. With this many people (and
> many
> > new to the community), it seems important to have a code of conduct to
> refer
> > to and possibly *prevent* any incidents from happening. And for some
> people
> > (not sure exact percentage), it makes them feel more comfortable
> attending a
> > conference that has a code of conduct.
>
> Just an honest and simple question: would it make sense to have a
> different code of conduct for meetings and the rest?
>
> I know it sounds like a bad idea, but my rationale is that maybe this
> would at least solve some of the points that socially inept people
> feel pressure on the current proposal.
>
> Because the consequences of a physical meeting can be a lot tougher
> than any electronic one, and because timing is of the essence, the
> wording *has* to be stronger and an executive decision has to be
> implemented.
>
> But such strong wording and harsh unappealable consequences do make
> us, of the anti-social variety, very frightened. We grew in a world
> that never made sense, and we have suffered our childhoods and
> adulthoods in constant fear of irrational (to our minds) reprimands.
> This is not a simple matter, it's quite real and have made me
> seriously consider many times leaving the open source realm for good.
> I have left jobs and regressed in my career because of things like
> that.
>
> From the very wording in the proposed CoC, we don't want to leave
> anyone behind, including physical and mental disabilities. If that's
> true, and we really mean it, than imposing such a harsh CoC from the
> majority of opinions is exactly the opposite of that. People like me
> are clearly not the majority, the NAS UK estimates 1 every 100 people
> in England has some form of autism, but that's the whole point of a
> CoC, is to not forget about the people with some form of fragility.
>
There is an extremely large difference between fragility and an inability
to be polite and respectful.

I do not think there is a useful way for us to encourage and welcome
individuals who, for whatever reason including medical reasons, are
literally *incapable* of interacting in a social setting in a civil,
polite, and respectful manner. That would be a no-win situation. But
reality is not this cut and dry or black and white.

I have both friends and colleagues with autism and other severe mental,
social, and cultural challenges. And yet, they are not *incapable* of this.
Certainly, sometimes, it is a significantly greater challenge for them to
understand why people react in the way that they do. However, they take on
that challenge and learn and succeed at being wonderful people. Do they
have to work harder than I do? Some of them probably do. Do I try to
sympathize, remain patient, and help them as much as I can? Absolutely.
Does any of this mean it is *ok for them to be disrepectful?* Absolutely
not.

This is a tradeoff between effort on your part to be polite and respectful,
potentially *a tremendous amount of effort*, and both causing direct and in
some cases irreversible emotional damage to someone and furthering an
entrenched and harmful bias in our community as well as the larger industry.

I think it is reasonable to ask people to undertake the effort, even though
for some it will be a very significant effort. For example, this discussion
and getting a strong and effective code of conduct is a *tremendous* effort
for me. It is worth it. I couldn't think of a better cause to pour my
energy into than making more people feel welcome in our open source
community.

And I do want you to feel welcome here. I just *also* want you to put forth
the necessary effort to keep your communication at the high standard we
have here. And I have seen you do so! I *know* that you are in fact capable
of communicating effectively *and* in line with the proposed code of
conduct. So I truly hope you do not feel discouraged.

-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151014/2a9a6d85/attachment.html>

On 10/14/2015 01:02 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote:
> On 14 October 2015 at 20:35, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> Related specifically to the developers meeting, we are growing quite
>> rapidly. For the past few years, we have been increasing our attendance
from
>> 50 at the start to now over 350 attendees. With this many people (and
many
>> new to the community), it seems important to have a code of conduct to
refer
>> to and possibly *prevent* any incidents from happening. And for some
people
>> (not sure exact percentage), it makes them feel more comfortable
attending a
>> conference that has a code of conduct.
> Just an honest and simple question: would it make sense to have a
> different code of conduct for meetings and the rest?
>
> I know it sounds like a bad idea, but my rationale is that maybe this
> would at least solve some of the points that socially inept people
> feel pressure on the current proposal.
>
> Because the consequences of a physical meeting can be a lot tougher
> than any electronic one, and because timing is of the essence, the
> wording *has* to be stronger and an executive decision has to be
> implemented.
>
> But such strong wording and harsh unappealable consequences do make
> us, of the anti-social variety, very frightened. We grew in a world
> that never made sense, and we have suffered our childhoods and
> adulthoods in constant fear of irrational (to our minds) reprimands.
> This is not a simple matter, it's quite real and have made me
> seriously consider many times leaving the open source realm for good.
> I have left jobs and regressed in my career because of things like
> that.
>
>  From the very wording in the proposed CoC, we don't want to leave
> anyone behind, including physical and mental disabilities. If that's
> true, and we really mean it, than imposing such a harsh CoC from the
> majority of opinions is exactly the opposite of that. People like me
> are clearly not the majority, the NAS UK estimates 1 every 100 people
> in England has some form of autism, but that's the whole point of a
> CoC, is to not forget about the people with some form of fragility.
Renato, if I'm reading you right, you're main concern here is the 
reporting policy and consequences thereof right?  I'm trying to separate 
possible concerns about the CoC itself from how the community decides to 
enforce it.  Do you feel that Chandler's proposed CoC introduces any new 
expectations?  I see it as a rephrasing as what we already expect and 
have abided by in the past.

Are there any specific and concrete changes you'd like to see to either 
the CoC or reporting policy?  You mentioned splitting the in person and 
virtual interaction cases above.  I personally think that's a bad idea 
for the official policy, but it's exactly the type of concrete proposal 
we can consider and discuss.  If you have any other ideas, please throw 
them out.

I want to explicitly state that I believe Renato is raising a real and 
concerning point.  There are many people for whom implicit social 
contracts are problematic.  I see one of the main advantages of the CoC 
proposal being that these implicit rules stop being implicit.  We may 
need to be a bit more explicit in some cases, but having a CoC would 
seem strictly better than not having it.
> By the replies I've seen so far, there were others that feel the same
> way, and I wonder if they're also feeling a little uncomfortable with
> the wording.
>
> Disclaimer: This is not personal nor an accusation, I know you
> wouldn't do anything to upset anyone. I'm just trying to solve a
> problem that I can see people have, but can't express without looking
> rude. I'm *really* sorry, but we just sound rude, we're not really,
> and I do appreciate when people remind me if I slip up.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On 10/14/2015 01:25 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:02 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org
> <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 14 October 2015 at 20:35, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
>     <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>     > Related specifically to the developers meeting, we are growing
quite
>     > rapidly. For the past few years, we have been increasing our
>     attendance from
>     > 50 at the start to now over 350 attendees. With this many people
>     (and many
>     > new to the community), it seems important to have a code of
>     conduct to refer
>     > to and possibly *prevent* any incidents from happening. And for
>     some people
>     > (not sure exact percentage), it makes them feel more comfortable
>     attending a
>     > conference that has a code of conduct.
>
>     Just an honest and simple question: would it make sense to have a
>     different code of conduct for meetings and the rest?
>
>     I know it sounds like a bad idea, but my rationale is that maybe this
>     would at least solve some of the points that socially inept people
>     feel pressure on the current proposal.
>
>     Because the consequences of a physical meeting can be a lot tougher
>     than any electronic one, and because timing is of the essence, the
>     wording *has* to be stronger and an executive decision has to be
>     implemented.
>
>     But such strong wording and harsh unappealable consequences do make
>     us, of the anti-social variety, very frightened. We grew in a world
>     that never made sense, and we have suffered our childhoods and
>     adulthoods in constant fear of irrational (to our minds) reprimands.
>     This is not a simple matter, it's quite real and have made me
>     seriously consider many times leaving the open source realm for good.
>     I have left jobs and regressed in my career because of things like
>     that.
>
>     From the very wording in the proposed CoC, we don't want to leave
>     anyone behind, including physical and mental disabilities. If
that's
>     true, and we really mean it, than imposing such a harsh CoC from the
>     majority of opinions is exactly the opposite of that. People like me
>     are clearly not the majority, the NAS UK estimates 1 every 100 people
>     in England has some form of autism, but that's the whole point of a
>     CoC, is to not forget about the people with some form of fragility.
>
>
> There is an extremely large difference between fragility and an 
> inability to be polite and respectful.
Chandler, I think your opening here is a bit quick to dismiss Renato's 
position.  Your following text is more reasonable, but you first 
sentence comes across as a bit harsh.

(For the record, I'd normally not have said anything, but since this is 
specifically in a thread about community social
norms...)
>
> I do not think there is a useful way for us to encourage and welcome 
> individuals who, for whatever reason including medical reasons, are 
> literally *incapable* of interacting in a social setting in a civil, 
> polite, and respectful manner. That would be a no-win situation. But 
> reality is not this cut and dry or black and white.
>
> I have both friends and colleagues with autism and other severe 
> mental, social, and cultural challenges. And yet, they are not 
> *incapable* of this. Certainly, sometimes, it is a significantly 
> greater challenge for them to understand why people react in the way 
> that they do. However, they take on that challenge and learn and 
> succeed at being wonderful people. Do they have to work harder than I 
> do? Some of them probably do. Do I try to sympathize, remain patient, 
> and help them as much as I can? Absolutely. Does any of this mean it 
> is *ok for them to be disrepectful?* Absolutely not.
I would read Renato's point as being in a round-about-way a request for 
help.  How should he (or anyone) not familiar with the existing norms 
within the community expect to function?  Part of learning is making 
mistakes and being corrected.  Particular for someone with a form of 
autism, those corrections may need to include an explanation of what not 
to do again and why.  I think part of Renato's concern - it definitely 
is part of mine! - is that he might say something, unintentionally 
offend someone, and not get a chance to learn from it.

For the record, I have personally run into this in the past.  I've 
managed to seriously offend a couple of folks and had *absolutely* no 
idea why until a third party took me aside and explained what I did and 
how it was perceived.  That doesn't change the fact that I'm still 
responsible for having given offense or that I didn't do my best to make 
amends, but the chance to learn without it being "game over" is key.

Now, obviously, providing that learning opportunity should not be taken 
too far.  If someone's safety is in question, "game over" is 
*absolutely* the right response.  Nor does it mean that there can not be 
serious consequences.  We simply need to keep in mind that behavior can 
change, and that offense may not have been (probably wasn't) 
intentional.  If we keep that in mind and steer towards moderation and 
informal correction (as we have in the past), I don't see there being 
any inherent conflict here.
>
> This is a tradeoff between effort on your part to be polite and 
> respectful, potentially *a tremendous amount of effort*, and both 
> causing direct and in some cases irreversible emotional damage to 
> someone and furthering an entrenched and harmful bias in our community 
> as well as the larger industry.
>
> I think it is reasonable to ask people to undertake the effort, even 
> though for some it will be a very significant effort.
+1 to this.

(Nothing I said above is intended to dispute this in any way.  If it 
seems that way, my wording was poor and please ask me to
clarity.)
> For example, this discussion and getting a strong and effective code 
> of conduct is a *tremendous* effort for me. It is worth it. I couldn't 
> think of a better cause to pour my energy into than making more people 
> feel welcome in our open source community.
>
> And I do want you to feel welcome here. I just *also* want you to put 
> forth the necessary effort to keep your communication at the high 
> standard we have here. And I have seen you do so! I *know* that you 
> are in fact capable of communicating effectively *and* in line with 
> the proposed code of conduct. So I truly hope you do not feel discouraged.
>
> -Chandler
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151014/72da314d/attachment-0001.html>

On 14 October 2015 at 21:41, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
wrote:
> Renato, if I'm reading you right, you're main concern here is the
reporting
> policy and consequences thereof right?
Yes.

> Do you feel that Chandler's proposed CoC introduces any new
expectations?
My only concern is due to the nature of the decisions that cannot be
appealed. As you said, the "game over" situation prevents learning,
which induces more bad behaviour for lack of knowledge in a spiralling
manner, and leads to permanent actions.

If the CoC had such drastic measures restricted to physical meetings,
it would solve the problem.

I need to sleep now, but I'll add my comments to the review tomorrow
morning.

Thank you for being so clear on my own sentiments, I could not have
said it better. :)

cheers,
--renato

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at
linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> On 14 October 2015 at 20:35, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> Related specifically to the developers meeting, we are growing quite
>> rapidly. For the past few years, we have been increasing our attendance
from
>> 50 at the start to now over 350 attendees. With this many people (and
many
>> new to the community), it seems important to have a code of conduct to
refer
>> to and possibly *prevent* any incidents from happening. And for some
people
>> (not sure exact percentage), it makes them feel more comfortable
attending a
>> conference that has a code of conduct.
> 
> Just an honest and simple question: would it make sense to have a
> different code of conduct for meetings and the rest?
> 
> I know it sounds like a bad idea, but my rationale is that maybe this
> would at least solve some of the points that socially inept people
> feel pressure on the current proposal.
I don’t really think how someone is expected to behave should differ from in
person versus online. So I think the core values of the CoC apply to both
situations.

However, I do think that the consequences of such behavior could be different.
In an in person situation during a 2 day event, decisions about what to do have
to be made faster and could mean asking someone to leave the conference. This is
really based on a case-by-case situation.

However, I don’t feel we should have 2 separate code of conducts. I think that
this applies more towards what the committee does with a report versus the rest
of the CoC. I think there is room for improvement in this area.

Thanks,
Tanya

> 
> Because the consequences of a physical meeting can be a lot tougher
> than any electronic one, and because timing is of the essence, the
> wording *has* to be stronger and an executive decision has to be
> implemented.
> 
> But such strong wording and harsh unappealable consequences do make
> us, of the anti-social variety, very frightened. We grew in a world
> that never made sense, and we have suffered our childhoods and
> adulthoods in constant fear of irrational (to our minds) reprimands.
> This is not a simple matter, it's quite real and have made me
> seriously consider many times leaving the open source realm for good.
> I have left jobs and regressed in my career because of things like
> that.
> 
> From the very wording in the proposed CoC, we don't want to leave
> anyone behind, including physical and mental disabilities. If that's
> true, and we really mean it, than imposing such a harsh CoC from the
> majority of opinions is exactly the opposite of that. People like me
> are clearly not the majority, the NAS UK estimates 1 every 100 people
> in England has some form of autism, but that's the whole point of a
> CoC, is to not forget about the people with some form of fragility.
> 
> By the replies I've seen so far, there were others that feel the same
> way, and I wonder if they're also feeling a little uncomfortable with
> the wording.
> 
> Disclaimer: This is not personal nor an accusation, I know you
> wouldn't do anything to upset anyone. I'm just trying to solve a
> problem that I can see people have, but can't express without looking
> rude. I'm *really* sorry, but we just sound rude, we're not really,
> and I do appreciate when people remind me if I slip up.
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> cheers,
> --renato

Am 14.10.2015 um 23:23 schrieb Tanya Lattner via
llvm-dev:
>
> I don’t really think how someone is expected to behave should differ
> from in person versus online. So I think the core values of the CoC
> apply to both situations.
Real-world and online personality do differ.
Occasionally this can be quite drastic; I know I'm such a case.
> However, I don’t feel we should have 2 separate code of conducts.
I have come to the same point of view, though maybe through another 
avenue: It's simply impractical to draw up two different CoCs. It's 
really hard to be sure about which specific clause applies to what comtext.