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

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

Am 07.05.2016 um 01:25 schrieb Renato Golin:
> 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.
In fact I was not making a joke.
Those parts of Renato's analysis that have been working on that 
assumption are spot on.
> 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.
Exactly.
> 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.
Actually, for me, this very discussion has destroyed that image already.

So... bye to all, I already unsubscribed (I got to answer this message 
only because I got CC'd due to attempts at fighting the list's header 
mangling).

To those who think "good riddance": I'm not blaming you, just
consider
that I'm part of a demographic just like those who need a CoC. Include 
one and you lose the other, and you don't have solid data about the size 
or quality of each demographic.

Regards,
Jo

It is funny to see how the thing that was supposed to unite people actually
create a discord. I've got another proof that CoCs are terrible idea in
their very nature. The only sane CoC i could think of is "it is all your
problem".

Just my 2c.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160507/a269d6e1/attachment.html>