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

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 6 May 2016 at 19:16, Philip Reames via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > 1) Person A makes a documented serious physical threat against Person
B
> who
> > is a member of the LLVM community.  Person A does not then get to come
> into
> > the community and continue harassing Person B.  We can and could say
> Person
> > A is not welcome; at minimum, all of Person A's communications
should be
> > moderated.
>
> Are we proposing actively singling out people in our community? This
> doesn't scale and is just plain offensive. "Serious" is a
matter of
> perspective.
>
>
> > 2) Person A has multiple convictions for sexual assault or other
violent
> > crime.  Person A does not get to attend LLVM events.
>
> Are we proposing background checks for participating on our community?
> This could have so many legal problems in so many countries...
>
>
> > 3) Person A (an existing LLVM contributor) takes a technical
discussion
> from
> > LLVM with Person B into an alternate channel so as to personally
attack
> > person B without being subject to CoC. Workaround does not work, still
a
> > violation of CoC.
>
> I wonder how much powerless are we, today, to deal with that.
>
> We already have the power to moderate, ban, and publicly denounce people.
>
> We already have to power to revoke commit access, revert patches,
> unlink buildbots.
>
> And we already can do that with no explanations necessary, but we can
> always add explanations by email.
>
> I don't think in such a case, many people would complain, either.
>
This isn't just about what we can do today, but about explaining it to
people who haven't seen us do it/don't know what the community norms
are.
So that when evaluating which communities they might want to be involved
in, they have some confidence that this one might be compatible with their
comfort/needs/etc.

Also sets expectations better for members of the community (yes, there's
still lots of room for good judgment on the part of the community, those
who handle CoC issues, etc so that a lawyerly approach to the rules doesn't
actually get you very far) so people are less likely to be caught by
surprise. Not impossible, but to reduce the chance.

- Dave

>
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/03c53640/attachment-0001.html>

On 6 May 2016 at 19:34, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
wrote:
> This isn't just about what we can do today, but about explaining it to
> people who haven't seen us do it/don't know what the community
norms are. So
> that when evaluating which communities they might want to be involved in,
> they have some confidence that this one might be compatible with their
> comfort/needs/etc.
The CoC can do that on its own. We were talking specifically about the
"external media" clause.

--renato

On Friday, May 6, 2016, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 6 May 2016 at 19:34, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com
<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > This isn't just about what we can do today, but about explaining
it to
> > people who haven't seen us do it/don't know what the community
norms
> are. So
> > that when evaluating which communities they might want to be involved
in,
> > they have some confidence that this one might be compatible with their
> > comfort/needs/etc.
>
> The CoC can do that on its own. We were talking specifically about the
> "external media" clause.

I don't know if this has already been answered in the current thread or the
previous discussion of an llvm CoC, but: What is the intended resolution of
an issue like: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 where, IIUC, someone
from the community makes politically incorrect/unpopular statements outside
of the community on so-called "external media" (without attacking or
harassing anyone in particular), but keeps his/her direct interactions with
the community on topic, engineering related, and non-discriminatory?


Jon

>
> --renato
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/211d8359/attachment.html>