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

Renato,

Renato Golin wrote:
> On 15 October 2015 at 09:35, Bill Kelly via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote:
>>> However, it is incredibly
>>> important to not expect or demand that a person *you have made feel
>>> unsafe* take the time to explain why.
>>
>> I feel what you have written here to be offensive to the highest
degree,
>> and your words make me feel unsafe when contemplating their effect on
my
>> prospects for future interaction with this community.
> 
> Bill,
> 
> What Chandler is saying here is simply that: "people that have just
> been offended, rightly or wrongly, are understandably emotionally
> unstable".
I've indeed no argument with how you've phrased that idea.

The motivation for responding as I did above was two-fold.  First, the idea
to which I was responding--as phrased--felt like a Kafka trap:

  YOU have transgressed. WE don't have to tell you why.

  The accusation is the evidence.

  etc.

Second, I wondered if adopting the language of 'offensive' and
'unsafe'
might help illustrate the point that anyone can claim to be triggered by
something.

(It felt very strange to speak in that manner, as I don't consider my
personal sense of being offended to constitute a valid counter argument.)

> I don't think that he's saying that that person will *never* have
to
> explain, or that at least someone else could not explain. Nor he's
> saying, IIUC, that this is an excuse for unjustly mistreating the
> offender. We don't want excuses either way. We want resolve.
> 
> I also felt that the wording reflected that, and why I raised the
> issue in the first place. But I never thought Chandler or Tanya have
> ever *meant* that, only that careful wording is in order to make sure
> it never *will*.
Definitely agreed on the latter point that careful wording is needed.

I've no reason to doubt the sincerity of Chandler or Tanya.

My concern is rather that however well-intentioned, safe space policies
are routinely being weaponized to censor and punish even rather ordinary
speech.

(I am not politically aligned with the following website, but I'm very
much in sync with this article, which enumerates several such excesses:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
)


In any case, I suspect that I am by now probably belaboring the point.

But I appreciate having had the opportunity to present my concerns.


Regards,

Bill

On 15 October 2015 at 11:03, Bill Kelly <billk at cts.com>
wrote:
>
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
Very good article, and indeed shows some of the exaggerations that
we're trying to avoid by toning down the language and making sure all
sides are "cared for" in equal terms.

cheers,
--renato

[Meant to send this to the list... confounded email programs.]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
Bill
> Kelly via llvm-dev
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 3:04 AM
> To: Renato Golin
> Cc: LLVM Dev
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct
> 
> Renato,
> 
> Renato Golin wrote:
> > On 15 October 2015 at 09:35, Bill Kelly via llvm-dev
> > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote:
> >>> However, it is incredibly
> >>> important to not expect or demand that a person *you have made
feel
> >>> unsafe* take the time to explain why.
> >>
> >> I feel what you have written here to be offensive to the highest
> degree,
> >> and your words make me feel unsafe when contemplating their effect
on
> my
> >> prospects for future interaction with this community.
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > What Chandler is saying here is simply that: "people that have
just
> > been offended, rightly or wrongly, are understandably emotionally
> > unstable".
> 
> I've indeed no argument with how you've phrased that idea.
> 
> The motivation for responding as I did above was two-fold.  First, the
> idea
> to which I was responding--as phrased--felt like a Kafka trap:
> 
>   YOU have transgressed. WE don't have to tell you why.
> 
>   The accusation is the evidence.
> 
>   etc.
I think that's a misinterpretation of the process. The *upset person*
does not have to tell *you* why. However, the upset person DOES have
to tell the advisory committee why, and it is the committee's job to
tell you why, if the upset person declines to do so.

The accusation is certainly not the evidence. Any interaction in an
online space provided by LLVM.org is fully available as an impartial
disinterested record to refer to.

There's no he-said-she-said aspect to this at all.
> 
> Second, I wondered if adopting the language of 'offensive' and
'unsafe'
> might help illustrate the point that anyone can claim to be triggered by
> something.
> 
> (It felt very strange to speak in that manner, as I don't consider my
> personal sense of being offended to constitute a valid counter argument.)
> 
> 
> > I don't think that he's saying that that person will *never*
have to
> > explain, or that at least someone else could not explain. Nor he's
> > saying, IIUC, that this is an excuse for unjustly mistreating the
> > offender. We don't want excuses either way. We want resolve.
> >
> > I also felt that the wording reflected that, and why I raised the
> > issue in the first place. But I never thought Chandler or Tanya have
> > ever *meant* that, only that careful wording is in order to make sure
> > it never *will*.
> 
> Definitely agreed on the latter point that careful wording is needed.
> 
> I've no reason to doubt the sincerity of Chandler or Tanya.
> 
> My concern is rather that however well-intentioned, safe space policies
> are routinely being weaponized to censor and punish even rather ordinary
> speech.
The question there is whether the advisory committee will be willing to
tolerate that sort of behavior, which I at least would view as an abuse
of the intent of the policy.
--paulr
> 
> (I am not politically aligned with the following website, but I'm very
> much in sync with this article, which enumerates several such excesses:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-
> american-mind/399356/
> )
> 
> 
> In any case, I suspect that I am by now probably belaboring the point.
> 
> But I appreciate having had the opportunity to present my concerns.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On 15 October 2015 at 19:22, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> The question there is whether the advisory committee will be willing to
> tolerate that sort of behavior, which I at least would view as an abuse
> of the intent of the policy.
I wouldn't like to let this in the hands of people. Committees change,
people change and institutionalized abuse is not always realised until
it's too late.

If the wording allows the committee to perpetrate abuses, the wording
must be changed in the same way it tries to avoid abuses from members
of the community.

I think we're all in the same page as to the ideal. So, lets just make
the wording reflect that. It's pretty simple, really.

cheers,
--renato