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

On 5 May 2016 at 22:19, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Having a code of conduct like this is just as bad as having no code of
conduct at all. It trivializes the importance of a code of conduct and its
pretty much impossible to enforce.
The same way you feel about this code, we feel about the alternative.
It's only a matter of perspective.

> After observing what is happening in many other communities in regards to
women in technology, I would be much more likely to participate in a community
that actually has a well thought out and meaningful code of conduct.
I think I have expressed enough of my desire to get women into STEM.
If not, let me reiterate: 50/50, nothing less will do.

However, I wonder how much of that has ever had the risk to leaking
into our community?

My argument to Hal is that, none of that happened overnight. For that
to happen to us, our community would have to be permissive to abusive
behaviour for months, or years, and we'd notice a lot sooner than
that.

The worse cases I've seen was the kernel and docker, both fairly loose
communities, where it didn't seem to have *any* consensus on behaviour
whatsoever. We're not like that.

When kernel folks come to us and start swearing, we ask them to stop,
then we ignore their emails. That's better than and CoC could ever ask
for.

So, here's a turn on the tables...

 * Can anyone prove that a CoC would be more effective against abuse
than the already very effective and cost free method we use?

 * Can anyone come up with a threat that the current consensus would
not protect us from, and at the same time, a CoC would be the *only*
alternative?

 * Can anyone prove that, just writing "we don't condone abuse, let us
know" is in *any* way (including legal) worse than a text that was
written by someone else and people seemed to like?

Unless we have clear answers to those questions, Occam's razor tells
me we should just be our good selves and show people with behaviour,
not words, how nice we are.


cheers,
--renato

> On May 5, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> 
> On 5 May 2016 at 22:19, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> Having a code of conduct like this is just as bad as having no code of
conduct at all. It trivializes the importance of a code of conduct and its
pretty much impossible to enforce.
> 
> The same way you feel about this code, we feel about the alternative.
> It's only a matter of perspective.
> 
> 
>> After observing what is happening in many other communities in regards
to women in technology, I would be much more likely to participate in a
community that actually has a well thought out and meaningful code of conduct.
> 
> I think I have expressed enough of my desire to get women into STEM.
> If not, let me reiterate: 50/50, nothing less will do.
> 
> However, I wonder how much of that has ever had the risk to leaking
> into our community?
> 
> My argument to Hal is that, none of that happened overnight. For that
> to happen to us, our community would have to be permissive to abusive
> behaviour for months, or years, and we'd notice a lot sooner than
> that.
> 
> The worse cases I've seen was the kernel and docker, both fairly loose
> communities, where it didn't seem to have *any* consensus on behaviour
> whatsoever. We're not like that.
> 
> When kernel folks come to us and start swearing, we ask them to stop,
> then we ignore their emails. That's better than and CoC could ever ask
> for.
> 
> So, here's a turn on the tables...
> 
> * Can anyone prove that a CoC would be more effective against abuse
> than the already very effective and cost free method we use?
> 
> * Can anyone come up with a threat that the current consensus would
> not protect us from, and at the same time, a CoC would be the *only*
> alternative?
> 
> * Can anyone prove that, just writing "we don't condone abuse, let
us
> know" is in *any* way (including legal) worse than a text that was
> written by someone else and people seemed to like?
> 
> Unless we have clear answers to those questions, Occam's razor tells
> me we should just be our good selves and show people with behaviour,
> not words, how nice we are.
The point is that you wouldn’t know that from looking at the alternative code of
conduct. I would need to spend months pouring through mailing lists posts and
watching the community to feel its a good and safe place. One of the many
reasons a code of conduct is useful is to show outsiders what our community is
like, what we think is acceptable and what is not. They read that, then they
know how they are expected to behave and how they will be treated. They are much
more likely to be a part of that community. Is it the only reason people join a
community? No, but unfortunately its becoming a big part of the decision
(especially for those in the minority).

We can argue into we are blue in the face about which is more effective in
preventing abuse. There is no way to prove this 100% one way or another. But
there are other goals of a CoC that can not be ignored and are not met by the
alternative CoC.

-Tanya
> 
> 
> cheers,
> --renato

On 5 May 2016 at 23:06, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org>
wrote:
> The point is that you wouldn’t know that from looking at the alternative
code of conduct. I would need to spend months pouring through mailing lists
posts and watching the community to feel its a good and safe place.
Right, this is a very good point for having something written down.

> One of the many reasons a code of conduct is useful is to show outsiders
what our community is like, what we think is acceptable and what is not. They
read that, then they know how they are expected to behave and how they will be
treated. They are much more likely to be a part of that community.
My argument is that this is much more important in the US than in most
other places (see my response to Hal). But the US is a big enough
chunk that we cannot ignore.

However, we also can't ignore that the US is not the *only* source,
and for a few of us, having a code that is overly powerful while being
overly vague is a reason to *leave* the project. Some even mentioned
forking it.

Then my question is: how many people are we prepared to lose, and how
many are we expecting to gain? More importantly, can we gain without
losing?
>From the few passionate responses against the code in its current
form, it would be naive to say we could. So, can we change the code in
order to not lose those types of people?

Mind you, those that responded are but a few who *can* respond. The
kind of impasse this CoC creates, affects people that rarely
communicate, especially on controversial subjects such as this. And
those people don't blog about their problems, they just go be
productive elsewhere. You won't know they're gone until it's too
late.

> But there are other goals of a CoC that can not be ignored and are not met
by the alternative CoC.
Such as?

--renato

Am 06.05.2016 um 00:06 schrieb Tanya Lattner via
llvm-dev:
>
> The point is that you wouldn’t know that from looking at the
> alternative code of conduct. I would need to spend months pouring
> through mailing lists posts and watching the community to feel its a
> good and safe place.
First, there's no such thing as a "good and safe place" per se;
what's
good and safe for one person might be abusive for another person. 
Different cultural and personal backgrounds, and if you join an 
international community, you actually expect people to be different.

Second, words are cheap. Even an enforceable CoC won't make you feel 
safe, because you'd have to pore over months of mailing list posts to 
see whether it is actually enforced.
The only thing that can be concluded from an enforceable CoC is that it 
may be enforced if you misbehave, in the eyes of somebody with enough 
clout to level that kind of allegation. I'd feel much *less* safe in 
such an environment; so I guess it's good thing that I don't care too 
much about safety but simply participate and watch what happens.

 > One of the many reasons a code of conduct is
> useful is to show outsiders what our community is like, what we think
> is acceptable and what is not. They read that, then they know how
> they are expected to behave and how they will be treated.
Formal CoC and informal descriptions carry about the same weight in that 
respect: A description of what the group believes about itself.

It's only marginally related to how the group actually acts.

 > They are
> much more likely to be a part of that community. Is it the only
> reason people join a community? No, but unfortunately its becoming a
> big part of the decision (especially for those in the minority).
Collect enough attributes and you're guaranteed to be in some minority.

If it's really a concern, pretend you're a white Western male. It's
easy
enough on a mailing list.
This doesn't work on conferences, but as I said elsewhere: That's 
covered by house rules. Select locations that do not accept harrassment 
and you'll be fine.
> We can argue into we are blue in the face about which is more
> effective in preventing abuse. There is no way to prove this 100% one
> way or another. But there are other goals of a CoC that can not be
> ignored and are not met by the alternative CoC.
On the other hand, the more explicit a CoC, the more it becomes a tool 
for the power-hungry.
Don't laugh, don't shrug that away. Read Orwell's "Animal
Farm" instead,
it's a parable of good intentions being subjected to piecewise 
subversion, until the same privileged positions are re-established, just 
with different people holding them.

At best, the CoC will be ignored and the list will stay the way it is.
At worst, the CoC will be wielded as a tool of power.
The actual content of the CoC doesn't matter much for these things; what 
matters is how people act, not what CoC they claim to follow.