[llvm-dev] RFC: Introducing an LLVM Community Code of Conduct

Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
Wed, 14 Oct 2015 21:23:44 -0000

> 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