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

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 5 May 2016 at 19:48, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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.
I'd like to emphasise the "growing up" point, and how it is not
directly related to *having* a code of conduct.

People grow up all over the world and they get to be very different in
their beliefs, behaviours and style. Communities are no different.

Say what you want about the Linux kernel community, but you can't call
it immature. You can call the behaviour of some of its people
immature, but the community itself is not by a long shot.

Codes of conduct, as they come, are an expression of some people,
mostly from the US, in response to an extreme prejudicial behaviour,
and is related to the recent political climate in that country, more
than anything else.

Communities grow up every year in many places, they get to be decent
and caring (like ours, like Fosdem) without a code of conduct. That
very reason is a fact against the idea that we *need* a CoC.

But I'm not arguing that we don't, either. I'm supportive of a code
that is not overly US-centric and that doesn't curb real enthusiasm
when it's accompanied by a different culture. The current wording is
still too much on that side.

Trying to protect your culture is fine, but encoding your culture as
the "right culture" to be followed is not nice when there are people
from all over the world here. By enforcing a strongly biased CoC
(which the current version still is, US-centric), may give the idea
for people to abuse of their new-found power.

So, whatever list of people's choices and birth marks you want to put
in the "protected list of people", there will always be others.
Whatever "accepted behaviour" is described, there will always be
others. Whatever "unaccepted behaviour", there will always be a grey
area where that's not exactly what happened. Encoding the grey areas
will make it much worse, not better.

But it's when you mix that, with the banning power of an yet-undefined
group of people without any mention on how they'll be formed or
operate, that you're opening the code ripe for abuse from all angles.
Most of the abuse, however, will come unintentionally, when the people
in the committee will form a biased consensus and not allow a chance
of defence. When people in the community will unintentionally gang-up
on someone they don't like to force the code on them.

If you think this wouldn't happen normally, then know that on our
previous exchange I have been personally emailed by half a dozen
people telling me how much the code would shut me down, even though
publicly, people said they didn't think I was being harsh /
disrespectful.

I fear the new code will bring that. A simpler, less power enabling
and less biased code would not give anyone that power, and would be
far more inclusive than the current one.

cheers,
--renato

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Renato Golin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>
> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 2:06:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM
code of conduct
> 
> On 5 May 2016 at 19:48, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I'd like to emphasise the "growing up" point, and how it is
not
> directly related to *having* a code of conduct.
> 
> People grow up all over the world and they get to be very different
> in
> their beliefs, behaviours and style. Communities are no different.
> 
> Say what you want about the Linux kernel community, but you can't
> call
> it immature. You can call the behaviour of some of its people
> immature, but the community itself is not by a long shot.
But there are reasonable people who will not interact with that community
because they find that community's acceptance of offensive behavior
unacceptable. I certainly don't want to see that happen here.
 
> Codes of conduct, as they come, are an expression of some people,
> mostly from the US, in response to an extreme prejudicial behaviour,
> and is related to the recent political climate in that country, more
> than anything else.
> 
> Communities grow up every year in many places, they get to be decent
> and caring (like ours, like Fosdem) without a code of conduct. That
> very reason is a fact against the idea that we *need* a CoC.
> 
> But I'm not arguing that we don't, either. I'm supportive of a
code
> that is not overly US-centric and that doesn't curb real enthusiasm
> when it's accompanied by a different culture. The current wording is
> still too much on that side.
I don't understand what you mean by US-centric, perhaps you could elaborate?

My experience, working in the US at research-oriented organizations, is that a
lot of our sensitivity around these issues has nothing to do with US politics,
as such, but that we have a diverse workforce, with wide representation from
different cultures and traditions. Layered on top of that are variances in
English comprehension, social skills, personal history, and other factors. We
try really hard to make sure that everyone feels welcome and comfortable, and
that means maintaining a level of professionalism and respect that translates
well across cultural boundaries. We work with various vendors, university
research groups, etc. and many of these groups are just as, if not more, diverse
(and in many different countries).

Right now, whether it is our own employees doing the work, or a vendor's
employees, we can set an expectation that those employees interact with the LLVM
community when doing LLVM-related development. Should the level of discourse in
the LLVM community degrade from its current high standards, an employee might
object that interaction with the community would make them uncomfortable.
That's game-over for us.

Thanks again,
Hal
> Trying to protect your culture is fine, but encoding your culture as
> the "right culture" to be followed is not nice when there are
people
> from all over the world here. By enforcing a strongly biased CoC
> (which the current version still is, US-centric), may give the idea
> for people to abuse of their new-found power.
> 
> So, whatever list of people's choices and birth marks you want to put
> in the "protected list of people", there will always be others.
> Whatever "accepted behaviour" is described, there will always be
> others. Whatever "unaccepted behaviour", there will always be a
grey
> area where that's not exactly what happened. Encoding the grey areas
> will make it much worse, not better.
> 
> But it's when you mix that, with the banning power of an
> yet-undefined
> group of people without any mention on how they'll be formed or
> operate, that you're opening the code ripe for abuse from all angles.
> Most of the abuse, however, will come unintentionally, when the
> people
> in the committee will form a biased consensus and not allow a chance
> of defence. When people in the community will unintentionally gang-up
> on someone they don't like to force the code on them.
> 
> If you think this wouldn't happen normally, then know that on our
> previous exchange I have been personally emailed by half a dozen
> people telling me how much the code would shut me down, even though
> publicly, people said they didn't think I was being harsh /
> disrespectful.
> 
> I fear the new code will bring that. A simpler, less power enabling
> and less biased code would not give anyone that power, and would be
> far more inclusive than the current one.
> 
> 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 5/5/16 1:06 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> If you think this wouldn't happen normally, then know that on our
> previous exchange I have been personally emailed by half a dozen
> people telling me how much the code would shut me down, even though
> publicly, people said they didn't think I was being harsh /
> disrespectful.
Renato,

Thank you for saying the things you're saying.

I agree with a lot of them (probably most?), but shouldn't speak out 
publicly in the same way you have: these are the kinds of things get 
very political very fast, and it's very easy for me to get myself in 
"trouble" arguing with all these folks that want more 
government/governance in their lives... I want less, and so far less 
governance seems to have worked out just fine in this community.

<libertarian rant>
Your opposition's claim is that they want to protect minorities via 
majority rule... but that's a performative contradiction. The individual 
is the smallest minority; those who deny individual rights, cannot claim 
to be defenders of minorities.
</libertarian rant>
>
> I fear the new code will bring that. A simpler, less power enabling
> and less biased code would not give anyone that power, and would be
> far more inclusive than the current one.
private +1


Cheers,

Jon
>
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-- 
Jon Roelofs