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

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>

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:04 PM Jon Roelofs via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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>
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?
>
I can't speak for how a future committee would look at this, but I can
certainly tell you what I would personally look for and I would have
serious concerns if the response differed significantly:

Until there is some particular reason to believe that the communication
elsewhere is having a serious negative effect on members of the community
and their ability to effectively participate in the community, its none of
our business. But if there are serious negative effects, then trying to
find some way to deal with those seems reasonable. I suspect what that
looks like will depend almost entirely on the circumstances that arise.

As a hypothetical, if someone widely promotes positions that are
sufficiently hostile and unwelcoming to contributors that their mere
presence has a stifling effect and makes those contributors feel incapable
of interacting with the community, no matter how separate the external
behavior is kept or how much we do to try to keep things separate, I would
personally hope the committee would step in because I think that would have
a really negative effect on members of the community.

But it is also nearly impossible to predict what kinds of behavior would or
wouldn't have negative effects (especially these kinds of effects) in the
abstract or based on what happens in a different community with different
people. So I don't really know where the issue you cite falls. I can
imagine context where it could go either way, and I would hope that the
committee pays a *lot* of attention to that kind of context.

Anyways, my perspective on how this would work.
-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/1d002342/attachment.html>

On 6 May 2016 at 21:16, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
wrote:
> So I don't really know where the issue you cite falls. I can imagine
> context where it could go either way, and I would hope that the committee
> pays a *lot* of attention to that kind of context.
If the committee is open to scrutiny, this kind of problem solves
itself via external auditing.

So, if we had three or four people elected by the community to engage
with the committee on extreme cases where the response was deemed
unsatisfactory by a number of people, the committee itself wouldn't
need to be elected.

cheers,
--renato

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:04 PM Jon Roelofs via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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>
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?
>>
>
> I can't speak for how a future committee would look at this, but I can
> certainly tell you what I would personally look for and I would have
> serious concerns if the response differed significantly:
>
> Until there is some particular reason to believe that the communication
> elsewhere is having a serious negative effect on members of the community
> and their ability to effectively participate in the community, its none of
> our business. But if there are serious negative effects, then trying to
> find some way to deal with those seems reasonable. I suspect what that
> looks like will depend almost entirely on the circumstances that arise.
>
> As a hypothetical, if someone widely promotes positions that are
> sufficiently hostile and unwelcoming to contributors that their mere
> presence has a stifling effect and makes those contributors feel incapable
> of interacting with the community, no matter how separate the external
> behavior is kept or how much we do to try to keep things separate, I would
> personally hope the committee would step in because I think that would have
> a really negative effect on members of the community.
>
> But it is also nearly impossible to predict what kinds of behavior would
> or wouldn't have negative effects (especially these kinds of effects)
in
> the abstract or based on what happens in a different community with
> different people. So I don't really know where the issue you cite
falls. I
> can imagine context where it could go either way, and I would hope that the
> committee pays a *lot* of attention to that kind of context.
>
> Anyways, my perspective on how this would work.
> -Chandler
>
Thanks, that's very helpful.

If your points here could be clarified in the document itself, that would
address my main concern with it: that the CoC might be used to censor those
that the community disagrees with, in cases where the speech itself is as
you put it: "none of our business".


Jon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/a07c3272/attachment.html>