llvm dev - May 2016 - Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct

I won't disagree about a level of professionalism or what the
community does or doesn't need. However, I'd say that pragmatically if
profanity was an issue in the workplace, for a large development
community, that LKML would have run afoul a long time ago.

My view -
I'm only replying because the reality is that in the workplace
sometimes a full lexicon of words are spoken. I really don't like
being censored just to coddle overly sensitive people. Context...

This big discussion is started, but how will it conclude - would
someone just take action.

I don't like Chanlder's wall of text, because it doesn't seem simple
enough - should I draft up an alternative for review? I'd highly favor
common sense and super simple


On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>
wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Renato Golin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> To: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
>> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 7:44:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM
code of conduct
>>
>> On 5 May 2016 at 13:23, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
wrote:
>> > Is the list PG, PG-13, R or at what level do "we" adults
all
>> > consider
>> > "ok". Even on broadcast tv (in the US) you'll hear
some profanity.
>> > (context)
>> >
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts
>>
>> Excellent context!
>>
>>
>> > Some people have pointed out that they don't like the R-rated
style
>> > of
>> > the LKML. Profanity and no holds barred just isn't for some
people.
>> > I
>> > can respect that, but personally I find it more funny and
>> > raw/honest.
>>
>> I don't care much about the swearing like "s***, I broke the
bots
>> again", but I understand not everyone is like that, so I avoid to
the
>> best of my abilities.
>>
>> I can easily cope with "this code is a piece of s***",
because
>> sometimes it really is. Some people take it personal, though, so
it's
>> best if we all always avoid that kind of talk.
>>
>> But there's nothing dubious about: "you are a piece of s***
for
>> writing this code". That is totally unacceptable.
>
> I'd strongly prefer that we have a "no public profanity"
policy here. The fact that this community maintains a professional decorum is
essential to being able to treat community interaction as an expected part of
LLVM-related work activities. Otherwise, to name one problem, such expectations
might run afoul of laws and regulations governing the workplace environment.
Yes, some profanity is benign, but I see no definitive way to draw that line,
and frankly, there are no situations where it is required.
>
>  -Hal
>
>> Now, encoding this in the CoC is the hard part...
>>
>>
>> > In the world there exists arbitrators/moderators - Why not define
a
>> > couple of "adults" who have demonstrated a history of
strong and
>> > reasonable character. People who can defuse situations and
>> > basically
>> > be the guy which "we" trust to make good decisions.
Elect 3 -
>> > something pops up... we go to them to make a decision or help fix
>> > stuff. It's low volume so shouldn't be a burden.. they
would likely
>> > help out anyway..
>>
>> That's another point I had forgotten.
>>
>> I don't think the people in this committee should be nominated, but
>> voted. This is more than just the LLVM Foundation doing stuff on the
>> side, this is out whole community, of which the foundation is only
>> part of.
>>
>> I feel very strongly about that, even if I trust the people that get
>> nominated. Others might not, and that'd be against the very code
>> we're
>> trying to uphold.
>>
>> cheers,
>> --renato
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Assistant Computational Scientist
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory

On 5 May 2016 at 15:52, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
wrote:
> I won't disagree about a level of professionalism or what the
> community does or doesn't need. However, I'd say that pragmatically
if
> profanity was an issue in the workplace, for a large development
> community, that LKML would have run afoul a long time ago.
Even though I disagree with that part of their behaviour in general,
that's actually a very good point.

> I don't like Chanlder's wall of text, because it doesn't seem
simple
> enough - should I draft up an alternative for review? I'd highly favor
> common sense and super simple
https://fosdem.org/2016/practical/conduct/

Which also stemmed from people complaining that there wasn't a CoC so
they would not participate (and would actively encourage others to
boycott).

In fact, there was a code of sorts:

http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/fosdem-last-year-policy.jpg

but since that wasn't on the web page, and didn't have the
"official"
wording, those people didn't accept as official.

I'll leave as an exercise to the reader to understand how those
people's CoCs have let them rule other people's communities on how to
behave "properly".

cheers,
--renato

Am 05.05.2016 um 16:52 schrieb C Bergström via llvm-dev:
> I don't like Chanlder's wall of text, because it doesn't seem
simple
> enough - should I draft up an alternative for review? I'd highly favor
> common sense and super simple
+1

I prefer two-sentence rulesets:
#1 Please do $DESIRED_CONDUCT.
#2 Apply common sense.

One can follow that up with friendly advice how to deal with situations 
where it seems difficult to follow those rules. Even with that, less is 
more, because the topic is so contentious.

Oh, and rule #1 must fit into a single line. Don't even try to do an 
exhaustive list; abstraction is key.

Just my 2 cents.

Regards,
Jo

Proposed alternative

DRAFT
--------------------------
LLVM Code of Conduct (LCoC)

Prologue: LLVM community as a whole strives for equality and respect
in all areas. With this in mind, we want to establish a few words that
help(s)? everyone understand what to do if there is ever questions or
conflicts.

Motto: Be respectful, have fun and do great engineering.

LLVM Community members: People in and around the LLVM community - this
crosses borders and lots of forms of communication.

Community moderators: The community[1] will vote for three moderators
who will hold the term for 1 year.

Moderators are to help with dispute resolution, conflicts and other
situations as-needed. They should uphold the community values, motto
and strive to be unbiased, objective, fair and apply common sense
principles to the situation as well as if any action is needed.

Moderator assistance: There's no way to create an exhaustive list of
scenarios, but in general if you feel uncomfortable with someone in
the LLVM community it's best to send a friendly email and include as
much as possible to - _____ at ____.__

[1] How do define who can vote - not everyone is on the mailing list..
this in itself is tricky..

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:53 AM C Bergström <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
wrote:
> I don't like Chanlder's wall of text, because it doesn't seem
simple
> enough - should I draft up an alternative for review? I'd highly favor
> common sense and super simple
>
I don't think it makes sense to start from scratch, but perhaps others
disagree.

Looking at this thread and the previous threads (of which there have been
several) there seems to be pretty widespread support for the general
direction, and most of the comments on the current wording are important
but relatively narrow in scope.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160505/a4b326b0/attachment.html>

If I do spend the time to make a reasonable draft - I'd only ask that
the ballot has it as an option to vote on.

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:43 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:53 AM C Bergström <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> I don't like Chanlder's wall of text, because it doesn't
seem simple
>> enough - should I draft up an alternative for review? I'd highly
favor
>> common sense and super simple
>
>
> I don't think it makes sense to start from scratch, but perhaps others
> disagree.
>
> Looking at this thread and the previous threads (of which there have been
> several) there seems to be pretty widespread support for the general
> direction, and most of the comments on the current wording are important
but
> relatively narrow in scope.

Am 05.05.2016 um 20:43 schrieb Chandler Carruth via
llvm-dev:
> there seems to be pretty widespread support for the general
> direction, and most of the comments on the current wording are important
> but relatively narrow in scope.
You're counting votes here, not building a consensus.
I do not think that that's a good idea, though obviously you disagree.