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

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

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:47 PM Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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...
>
FWIW, this pretty much exactly how it breaks down for me. Can this sentence
be abused? Yes. But that abuse is equally a problem, and I think the
community is mature enough to handle and respond to it, especially within
the framework provided.

That said, I wonder what folks think about strengthening the
"de-intensifying" language? As a small change that might help:

"In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare
cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them."

Essentially trying to drive home that this would be a very unusual and
specific event.

Other wording idea, no idea if this really works or captures what people
want...

"In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect
a person's
ability to participate within them due to specific risks posed to members
of the LLVM community."


Unfortunately, most of the ideas I come up with that handle the (pretty
clear I hope) cases that *need* to be handled are too narrow: they *only*
handle the case I have in mind. It ends up being a giant pile of text full
of "loop holes" etc that I think would just make matters worse.

-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/dde25490/attachment.html>

On 6 May 2016 at 20:56, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
wrote:
> That said, I wonder what folks think about strengthening the
> "de-intensifying" language? As a small change that might help:
>
> "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in
rare
> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them."
I prefer this change.

cheers,
--renato

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> FWIW, this pretty much exactly how it breaks down for me. Can this
> sentence be abused? Yes. But that abuse is equally a problem, and I think
> the community is mature enough to handle and respond to it, especially
> within the framework provided.
>
> That said, I wonder what folks think about strengthening the
> "de-intensifying" language? As a small change that might help:
>
> "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in
rare
> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them."
>
> Essentially trying to drive home that this would be a very unusual and
> specific event.
>
​I suppose I may have been a little hasty. Very well. I guess I'll adopt a
"wait and see" approach. I've little doubt now any committee we
select now
from the community would apply this largely fairly. I'm just worried about
more radical, totalitarian elements attempting to infiltrate the community,
and from there, the committee. *That's* how I see that language possibly
being abused in the future. (And in case it isn't clear, let me just state
for the record, I do not think any of you are totalitarian.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/f2a6f517/attachment.html>