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

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:55 AM C Bergström <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
wrote:
> Chandler - I do not want to derail, hijack or change the topic of this
> discussion - Would you be ok with me going into specific examples?
>
IMO, no, I don't think that would be a productive direction. I also suspect
it would have a high probability of (unintentionally) leading to exactly
the kinds of situations the code of conduct is designed to prevent.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160505/d0bdc49a/attachment.html>

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:55 AM C Bergström <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Chandler - I do not want to derail, hijack or change the topic of this
>> discussion - Would you be ok with me going into specific examples?
>
>
> IMO, no, I don't think that would be a productive direction. I also
suspect
> it would have a high probability of (unintentionally) leading to exactly
the
> kinds of situations the code of conduct is designed to prevent.
I'm on the fence if it could be productive..

LOL - How could a thought-out and detailed explanation of real world
circumstances lead to something so negative it would have to be
moderated... (??puzzled??)

Under your regime - would I be forbidden from calling someone else out
for generally being a bully or troll.. Specifically if I went through
and found say 6 cases where X caused friction in the community and in
general their behavior was more noise than actually productive.

I'm still lost at what's really driving this.. *something* must have
happened that prompted all this..

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:42 AM C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:55 AM C Bergström <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Chandler - I do not want to derail, hijack or change the topic of
this
> >> discussion - Would you be ok with me going into specific examples?
> >
> >
> > IMO, no, I don't think that would be a productive direction. I
also
> suspect
> > it would have a high probability of (unintentionally) leading to
exactly
> the
> > kinds of situations the code of conduct is designed to prevent.
>
> I'm on the fence if it could be productive..
>
> LOL - How could a thought-out and detailed explanation of real world
> circumstances lead to something so negative it would have to be
> moderated... (??puzzled??)
>
Some individuals involved in real world circumstances might not want them
to be publicly discussed in this manner. I have certainly been in
circumstances I wouldn't want to drag back through the mailing list.

>
> Under your regime - would I be forbidden from calling someone else out
> for generally being a bully or troll..

No, and there is *specific* wording in the reporting guide that makes this
quite clear I think. However, if you see any ways to improve it, I would
love to hear them.

>
> I'm still lost at what's really driving this.. *something* must
have
> happened that prompted all this..
>
In my opinion, the community is growing and growing up. We need to take
some steps to ensure that our long standing tradition of professional and
polite behavior continues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160505/16d81e1c/attachment.html>

On 05/05/2016 11:42 AM, C Bergström via llvm-dev wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:55 AM C Bergström <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> Chandler - I do not want to derail, hijack or change the topic of
this
>>> discussion - Would you be ok with me going into specific examples?
>>
>> IMO, no, I don't think that would be a productive direction. I also
suspect
>> it would have a high probability of (unintentionally) leading to
exactly the
>> kinds of situations the code of conduct is designed to prevent.
> I'm on the fence if it could be productive..
I'm a bit torn myself, but would lean towards the "too risky" side
of
things.  The gain is minimal and the odds that specific situations 
escalate are too high.  As a minimum standard, any specific situation 
that you do raise should be done only with the full consent of all the 
parties involved.  It would be utterly inappropriate to raise a 
particular situation/example if not all parties involved wanted to draw 
the negative attention raising it in this thread might
generate.
>
> LOL - How could a thought-out and detailed explanation of real world
> circumstances lead to something so negative it would have to be
> moderated... (??puzzled??)
The problem is that discussing a particular situation brings specific 
people into what was previously an abstract discussion. Several of the 
comments made in this and previous threads have skirted the 
appropriateness as things stand.  If those same comments had been poorly 
worded and seemed to apply specifically to a particular person... Well, 
that's likely to lead to exactly the type of personal arguments we're 
all hoping to avoid.

Does my concern make sense?
>
> Under your regime - would I be forbidden from calling someone else out
> for generally being a bully or troll.. Specifically if I went through
> and found say 6 cases where X caused friction in the community and in
> general their behavior was more noise than actually productive.
Your point is directly contradicted by the current CoC proposal.

Calling someone out on inappropriate behavior is absolutely 
appropriate.  However, doing so without making it into a personal attack 
is important as well.

"Hey, what you just said is not okay.  I'm sure you didn't mean to
be
personal insulting, but that came across as..." - OK
"You ***, how dare you say ___" -- NOT OK

As an example taken from your email, your use of the work "regime"
comes
across as potentially loaded with negative meaning.  I'd suggest that 
using a word like "proposal" would have been more neutral connotation 
wise and still made your point.  Your word choice could be read to imply 
that you view Chandler as a authoritarian dictator which he clearly is 
not.  :)
> I'm still lost at what's really driving this.. *something* must
have
> happened that prompted all this..
To my knowledge, there have been no specific recent incidents within the 
LLVM community to trigger this discussion.  There have certainly been 
ones in other communities in recent years.  A news search should find 
several.

Philip