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

On 6 May 2016 at 22:57, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org>
wrote:
> The major weapon of harassers is arguing whether something is actually
> harassing. It is difficult to enforce a CoC if you have to have a month
long
> nasty argument about whether it was violated. It burns out people like you.
The major weapon about enforcers is *not* wanting to argue.

Harassment is a very complicated issue that involves not only actions
but points of view.

For instance, you thought Joachim was joking, I didn't. If he was
joking, that would have been very bad taste. If he was not, that would
have been a perfectly valid and non aggressive way to understanding
the range of your statement.

Depending on your *point of view*, from that point forwards, things
would roll down in completely opposite paths.

If you don't discuss what is and what isn't harassment, or if you're
not prepared to understand that communications will breakdown very
easily, then you're taking an extremist point of view in regards to
the code and giving every one that has had fears so far, the right to
do so. I'm not saying *you* are, but that is the consequence if you
(or anyone else) would have been.

Now, assuming that he was joking, that would have been bad, but how
bad? It would depend on how many times it happened in the past (serial
offender, see the autism page I shared earlier), or if the affected
person asked him to stop and he didn't, or if he did this on the list
or out of it, etc. Those are all parts of the spectrum of harassment,
and they have to be dealt with in *very* different ways.

If we advocate on our CoC that we do not take a spectrum approach to
harassment, and that some unnamed people are the ones that choose what
is harassment and what is not, than you're telling all prospective
members that we essentially don't care about their opinions and their
behaviours will be monitored and potentially curbed at our own
discretion.

One may think it's ok to do that to potential offenders, but you
cannot tell who is an offender and who is not just by looking at which
T-Shirt they're wearing. Doing so is the most classic form of
prejudice.

I personally do not see this as the role of the CoC, and from my
conversations with Chandler and others on this list and the review,
this is not what they are thinking either. I'd rather deal with
offenders *after* they have offended than risking have my prejudice
affect the quality of the tools I build. It would also show how
efficient our process is against harassment.


cheers,
--renato

> On May 6, 2016, at 3:13 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> 
> On 6 May 2016 at 22:57, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org>
wrote:
>> The major weapon of harassers is arguing whether something is actually
>> harassing. It is difficult to enforce a CoC if you have to have a month
long
>> nasty argument about whether it was violated. It burns out people like
you.
> 
> The major weapon about enforcers is *not* wanting to argue.
> 
> Harassment is a very complicated issue that involves not only actions
> but points of view.
> 
> For instance, you thought Joachim was joking, I didn't. If he was
> joking, that would have been very bad taste. If he was not, that would
> have been a perfectly valid and non aggressive way to understanding
> the range of your statement.
> 
> Depending on your *point of view*, from that point forwards, things
> would roll down in completely opposite paths.
> 
> If you don't discuss what is and what isn't harassment, or if
you're
> not prepared to understand that communications will breakdown very
> easily, then you're taking an extremist point of view in regards to
> the code and giving every one that has had fears so far, the right to
> do so. I'm not saying *you* are, but that is the consequence if you
> (or anyone else) would have been.
> 
> Now, assuming that he was joking, that would have been bad, but how
> bad? It would depend on how many times it happened in the past (serial
> offender, see the autism page I shared earlier), or if the affected
> person asked him to stop and he didn't, or if he did this on the list
> or out of it, etc. Those are all parts of the spectrum of harassment,
> and they have to be dealt with in *very* different ways.
> 
> If we advocate on our CoC that we do not take a spectrum approach to
> harassment, and that some unnamed people are the ones that choose what
> is harassment and what is not, than you're telling all prospective
> members that we essentially don't care about their opinions and their
> behaviours will be monitored and potentially curbed at our own
> discretion.
> 
> One may think it's ok to do that to potential offenders, but you
> cannot tell who is an offender and who is not just by looking at which
> T-Shirt they're wearing. Doing so is the most classic form of
> prejudice.
> 
> I personally do not see this as the role of the CoC, and from my
> conversations with Chandler and others on this list and the review,
> this is not what they are thinking either. I'd rather deal with
> offenders *after* they have offended than risking have my prejudice
> affect the quality of the tools I build. It would also show how
> efficient our process is against harassment.
> 
Renato,

I am not going to argue with you anymore. I have stated my opinion that I think
the Code of Conduct needs to be more explicit than “be nice”. I have said  that
I like the list of what is harassment in the draft. I gave the above link as the
backing for why I feel that way. I have not said that no discussion needs to
happen about what is harassment.  Please stop twisting my words.

-Tanya

 
> 
> cheers,
> --renato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/3534a4c2/attachment.html>

On 6 May 2016 at 23:31, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org>
wrote:
> I am not going to argue with you anymore.
I hope this isn't how we'll deal with CoC violations.

> Please stop twisting my words.
I'm certainly not twisting your words. I'm sorry you feel that way.

I explicitly said I was confused, and I asked questions to understand
what the point was.

This proves my point that you see in my words intentions that didn't
exist. In the same way you saw Joachim making a joke that I don't
think he made.

I also don't think he was advocating that some harassment could be let
go, only that there are different ways to deal with it. I think this
is a perfectly valid point of view.

All in all some genuine concerns from people that are being at best
misinterpreted, and the reason why we have a judiciary system in the
first place. The legislative system alone cannot account for
everything that happens on paper, and it's up to the interpretation of
trained individuals, as well as random members of the public to make
sure the process is open and fair.

We may need some discretion on our side, to avoid even more
harassment, but any public decision (ex. bans) will end up public
anyway, and for any of those that will happen we'll need a pretty
solid case, or the image we're trying to save will only be destroyed.

--renato

I'm going to step in here (I'm also removing Joachim from the cc line as
I'm uninterested in debating him on this subject).

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:13 PM Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 6 May 2016 at 22:57, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org>
wrote:
> > The major weapon of harassers is arguing whether something is actually
> > harassing. It is difficult to enforce a CoC if you have to have a
month
> long
> > nasty argument about whether it was violated. It burns out people like
> you.
>
> The major weapon about enforcers is *not* wanting to argue.
>
A tongue in cheek description of why replying in this direction isn't
helpful: http://www.derailingfordummies.com/

> For instance, you thought Joachim was joking, I didn't. If he was
> joking, that would have been very bad taste. If he was not, that would
> have been a perfectly valid and non aggressive way to understanding
> the range of your statement.
>
Either way what Joachim said was over the line. Either he was joking about
seeking professional help which would be in bad taste and called out as
over the line. Or he was alluding to someone else needing to seek
professional help which is also very far over the line.

Taking "harassment should not be tolerated" and basically trying to
find a
description of what's acceptable and not as far as harassment doesn't
seem
like the right approach. I would take a step back here and realize that
ultimately all of this is about treating people fairly, with respect, and
listening to a concern if they raise it. If you try your best to do that
with everyone in the community then you don't have to worry.

Tanya voiced a concern and it needs to be taken seriously. Her quotes from
the Ada Initiative are important in understanding the context from which a
CoC comes from and how as a community we can contribute to the effort of
ensuring fair and inclusive community.

Ultimately I think we've explored this part of the thread as far as we can
go - perhaps we can go back to the discussions of earlier today?

-eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160507/a223fc0d/attachment.html>

<html><head></head><body lang="en-US"
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height:
initial;">                                                              
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri,
'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">For all
these "community" or non-dev issues can someone make a new mailing
list? I'm tired of a development centric list being flooded with (important
to you) noise. Respectfully, move this s*** somewhere else
please.</div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial;
font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size:
initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">Thanks</div></body></html>