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

On 05/06/2016 09:02 AM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev
wrote:
>>> 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.
> That cuts both ways. I have in the past posted in my facebook account
> articles from the onion that some people would consider offensive. If
> you don't like it, don't read the onion or be friends with me on
> facebook.
>
> I have been working on llvm since 2006 and according to the code of
> conduct I would now be liable to being banned from working on llvm
> because of sharing a satirical news.
I think it's fair to say everyone involved in this discussion would find 
that a ridiculous conclusion.  I personally am not too worried by the 
current wording, but are there particular changes which would set your 
mind at ease?  Several folks have raised concerns about the section 
which reads "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces 
may affect a person's ability to participate within them."  Is that the
one that gives you pause?   Or is there more? Pointing to specific 
pieces of wording would be really helpful here.

FYI, several folks have expressed specific concern about that particular 
wording.  If we can find wording which rephrases that to address the 
concern while retaining the intent, that seems like an obvious thing to 
fix.
>
> Again, I don't doubt the good intentions of the people working on
> this, but as written this is one of the most terrifying documents I
> have seen.
>
> Cheers,
> Rafael
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On 6 May 2016 at 18:43, Philip Reames via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> FYI, several folks have expressed specific concern about that particular
> wording.  If we can find wording which rephrases that to address the
concern
> while retaining the intent, that seems like an obvious thing to fix.
I've separated that myself, and done a bunch of wording review on
Phabricator. They were all pretty minor, but I think very relevant.

Feel free to have a look and comment on them, as I don't claim I know
better than anyone.

--renato

On 5/6/16 11:43 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote:
>
>
> On 05/06/2016 09:02 AM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> That cuts both ways. I have in the past posted in my facebook account
>> articles from the onion that some people would consider offensive. If
>> you don't like it, don't read the onion or be friends with me
on
>> facebook.
>>
>> I have been working on llvm since 2006 and according to the code of
>> conduct I would now be liable to being banned from working on llvm
>> because of sharing a satirical news.
> I think it's fair to say everyone involved in this discussion would
find
> that a ridiculous conclusion.  I personally am not too worried by the
> current wording, but are there particular changes which would set your
> mind at ease?  Several folks have raised concerns about the section
> which reads "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces
> may affect a person's ability to participate within them."  Is
that the
> one that gives you pause?   Or is there more? Pointing to specific
> pieces of wording would be really helpful here.
>
> FYI, several folks have expressed specific concern about that particular
> wording.  If we can find wording which rephrases that to address the
> concern while retaining the intent, that seems like an obvious thing to
> fix.
What /is/ the intent of that particular phrase?


Jon
>>
>> Again, I don't doubt the good intentions of the people working on
>> this, but as written this is one of the most terrifying documents I
>> have seen.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rafael
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-- 
Jon Roelofs

On 05/06/2016 11:03 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote:
>
>
> On 5/6/16 11:43 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05/06/2016 09:02 AM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>> That cuts both ways. I have in the past posted in my facebook
account
>>> articles from the onion that some people would consider offensive.
If
>>> you don't like it, don't read the onion or be friends with
me on
>>> facebook.
>>>
>>> I have been working on llvm since 2006 and according to the code of
>>> conduct I would now be liable to being banned from working on llvm
>>> because of sharing a satirical news.
>> I think it's fair to say everyone involved in this discussion would
find
>> that a ridiculous conclusion.  I personally am not too worried by the
>> current wording, but are there particular changes which would set your
>> mind at ease?  Several folks have raised concerns about the section
>> which reads "In addition, violations of this code outside these
spaces
>> may affect a person's ability to participate within them."  Is
that the
>> one that gives you pause?   Or is there more? Pointing to specific
>> pieces of wording would be really helpful here.
>>
>> FYI, several folks have expressed specific concern about that
particular
>> wording.  If we can find wording which rephrases that to address the
>> concern while retaining the intent, that seems like an obvious thing to
>> fix.
>
> What /is/ the intent of that particular phrase?
I think this has been covered elsewhere, but let me hit a couple of what 
I see as key cases:
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.
2) Person A has multiple convictions for sexual assault or other violent 
crime.  Person A does not get to attend LLVM events.
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.
4) Person A uses CoC to attack Person B based on Person B's stated 
political views in an outside venue.  Person B has always followed CoC 
in LLVM interactions and has keep personal politics separate. Person A 
(who may not even be a member of the community) could be found in 
violation of the CoC and banned from our spaces.

Just to be clear, my (3,4) are of a substantially different form and 
severity than (1,2).   And, as always, I speak only for myself.

>
>
> Jon
>
>>>
>>> Again, I don't doubt the good intentions of the people working
on
>>> this, but as written this is one of the most terrifying documents I
>>> have seen.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rafael
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>

>> I have been working on llvm since 2006 and according to the code of
>> conduct I would now be liable to being banned from working on llvm
>> because of sharing a satirical news.
>
> I think it's fair to say everyone involved in this discussion would
find
> that a ridiculous conclusion.  I personally am not too worried by the
> current wording, but are there particular changes which would set your mind
> at ease?  Several folks have raised concerns about the section which reads
> "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect
a
> person's ability to participate within them."  Is that the one
that gives
> you pause?   Or is there more? Pointing to specific pieces of wording would
> be really helpful here.
Yes. That is the main point.

The code of conduct should make sure we keep our work channels on
topic. The fact that I make comments on facebook that someone finds
offensive should have nothing to do with it and it should be clear
about that. No action that is not directly targeted at a particular
individual should be of relevance.

So my concerns are in order of decreasing priority (log scale):

* Way to broad area. It should clearly state that it is no trying to
police what I say on facebook or at general statements at a bar. That
should be true even I am having a discussion with someone else that
happens to work on llvm. What is not OK is to
1) Use llvm channels for that.
2) Direct ad hominem attacks.
3) Not letting go of the discussion if the other party wants to just
agree to disagree.

* The fact that it is not clear in that it is not trying to change the
community, but codify it. It should really still be OK to use
expressions like "cargo cult" and sabre should still be a valid irc
nick.

Cheers,
Rafael

>
> Several folks have raised concerns about the section which reads "In
> addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a
> person's ability to participate within them."  Is that the one
that gives
> you pause?
>
For what it's worth it's definitely the line that caused me the most
concern. In the least charitable reading it could be seen as applying "LLVM
community standards" to contributors' private lives, which would be a
big
departure from our current culture. I understand that that's not how
it's
intended though, and I trust the committee to apply a sensible (and lower)
standard to private behavior than they do to behavior in LLVM community
spaces. In Rafael's example, as you said, it would be ridiculous to
consider disciplining someone for sharing an Onion article on social media,
even if sharing that same article on the dev-list would have been
inappropriate.

- Lang.

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 05/06/2016 09:02 AM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>
>> That cuts both ways. I have in the past posted in my facebook account
>> articles from the onion that some people would consider offensive. If
>> you don't like it, don't read the onion or be friends with me
on
>> facebook.
>>
>> I have been working on llvm since 2006 and according to the code of
>> conduct I would now be liable to being banned from working on llvm
>> because of sharing a satirical news.
>>
> I think it's fair to say everyone involved in this discussion would
find
> that a ridiculous conclusion.  I personally am not too worried by the
> current wording, but are there particular changes which would set your mind
> at ease?  Several folks have raised concerns about the section which reads
> "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect
a
> person's ability to participate within them."  Is that the one
that gives
> you pause?   Or is there more? Pointing to specific pieces of wording would
> be really helpful here.
>
> FYI, several folks have expressed specific concern about that particular
> wording.  If we can find wording which rephrases that to address the
> concern while retaining the intent, that seems like an obvious thing to
fix.
>
>>
>> Again, I don't doubt the good intentions of the people working on
>> this, but as written this is one of the most terrifying documents I
>> have seen.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rafael
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c502b4f9/attachment.html>

On 6 May 2016 at 20:39, Lang Hames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> For what it's worth it's definitely the line that caused me the
most
> concern. In the least charitable reading it could be seen as applying
"LLVM
> community standards" to contributors' private lives, which would
be a big
> departure from our current culture.
Indeed, a very good point. The biggest argument is that the code is
not trying to change our culture and that definitely goes against it.

> I understand that that's not how it's
> intended though, and I trust the committee to apply a sensible (and lower)
> standard to private behavior than they do to behavior in LLVM community
> spaces. In Rafael's example, as you said, it would be ridiculous to
consider
> disciplining someone for sharing an Onion article on social media, even if
> sharing that same article on the dev-list would have been inappropriate.
I've added my comment on the review itself, but he're s a copy:

I personally feel this is not so bad for two things:

1. It says "may affect", not "will affect". Not a very
strong point
per se, but strong enough given point two.
2. Being unfair in the evaluation and punishment of cases like that
would go directly against this very code. Blocking someone because
they were seen with a silly T-shirt in their Facebook pictures will be
a clear case of bullying, and thus could be reported by this very
code.

If the committee is really serious about bullying, then the committee
will put itself on the list of potential offenders, and they should be
judged in the same manner.

If they don't, than we have much bigger problems than the code itself...

I hope I'm not being too naive.

cheers,
--renato