llvm dev - Jun 2016 - [cfe-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

That's just a residual clause.
It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities here (IE if you
stalk and murder someone in the llvm community, you are going to get kicked
out of the community, regardless of if you did it in a controlled space)
I mean, i'm subject to legal ethics rules that are very similar, and those
could get me kicked out of an entire profession :)

I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside these
spaces may, in rare
cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the
conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social
standard."

But it's not, in practice, any different.

Basically, if you are looking for complete and total bright line proscribed
standards, they pretty much don't exist anywhere except in criminal
statutes :)



On Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 2:45 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
wrote:
> I expect Rafael's concern is because the code also says:
>
>
>
> In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare
> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them.
>
>
>
> So it can apply outside spaces explicitly sponsored by LLVM, in undefined
> circumstances.
>
> --paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of
*Daniel
> Berlin via cfe-dev
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 30, 2016 1:37 PM
> *To:* Rafael Espíndola
> *Cc:* llvm-dev; cfe-dev; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org); LLDB
> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an
> LLVM Code of Conduct
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> wrote:
>
> I am strongly opposed to it as it stands.
>
> Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of
> conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in
> channels not related to llvm at all.
>
> errr, it says:
>
> "This code of conduct applies to all spaces managed by the LLVM
project or
> The
>
> LLVM Foundation. This includes IRC channels, mailing lists, bug trackers,
> LLVM
>
> vents such as the developer meetings and socials, and any other forums
> created
>
> by the project that the community uses for communication. "
>
>
>
>
>
> How does this cover channels not related to llvm?
>
>
>
> With this in place I will not consider myself a member of the llvm
> community anymore and would be terrified to interact with another llvm
> developer in a social setting.
>
>
>
> That would be sad, but i guess i'm not sure what is causing that. Is it
> that there is discretion in there that you are afraid may apply to you if
> taken to some extreme?
>
>
>
> Rafael
>
> On 30 June 2016 at 14:55, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev
>
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong) series of
> > discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project
as
> a
> > whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
> > code review.
> >
> > The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the
end
> > there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now.
It
> > isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around
> forming
> > the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording is
> at a
> > good point of compromise in a challenging area.
> >
> > Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the draft.
> I’m
> > hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and I’m
> > hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee and
> > resolving any issues around reporting so we can make this an official
> part
> > of the community.
> >
> > I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a new
> > discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on
llvm-dev
> if
> > folks want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh ones,
but I
> > would encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has
already
> > taken place to avoid revisiting areas that have already been heavily
> > discussed.
> >
> > Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on the
> > mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this
topic.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Chandler
> >
> > [1]: Prior announcements:
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html
> >
> > [2]: Existing threads:
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html
> >
>
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-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/20160630/2bfed2a0/attachment.html>

I don’t know what you meant to imply by “residual clause” — if you meant “it’s
not particularly important”, then I suggest it is left out entirely.  
Apparently at least a few of us have interpreted it to say “the committee
reserves the right to kick you out for any behaviour that violates our standards
which you exhibit anywhere, even if it is completely unrelated to the llvm
community”.

Personally, I’m just going to ignore it, and thus don’t really care whether it
stays or goes — but I do find it overreaching and intrusive, and completely
inappropriate in such a code of conduct.


On Jun 30, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> That's just a residual clause.
> It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities here (IE if
you stalk and murder someone in the llvm community, you are going to get kicked
out of the community, regardless of if you did it in a controlled space)
> I mean, i'm subject to legal ethics rules that are very similar, and
those could get me kicked out of an entire profession :)
> 
> I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside
these spaces may, in rare
> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the
conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social
standard."
> 
> But it's not, in practice, any different.
> 
> Basically, if you are looking for complete and total bright line proscribed
standards, they pretty much don't exist anywhere except in criminal statutes
:)
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 2:45 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at
sony.com> wrote:
> I expect Rafael's concern is because the code also says:
> 
>  
> 
> In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare
> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them.
> 
>  
> 
> So it can apply outside spaces explicitly sponsored by LLVM, in undefined
circumstances.
> 
> --paulr
> 
>  
> 
> From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
Daniel Berlin via cfe-dev
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 1:37 PM
> To: Rafael Espíndola
> Cc: llvm-dev; cfe-dev; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org); LLDB
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an
LLVM Code of Conduct
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> I am strongly opposed to it as it stands.
> 
> Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of
> conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in
> channels not related to llvm at all.
> 
> errr, it says:
> 
> "This code of conduct applies to all spaces managed by the LLVM
project or The
> 
> LLVM Foundation. This includes IRC channels, mailing lists, bug trackers,
LLVM
> 
> vents such as the developer meetings and socials, and any other forums
created
> 
> by the project that the community uses for communication. "
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> How does this cover channels not related to llvm?
> 
>  
> 
> With this in place I will not consider myself a member of the llvm
> community anymore and would be terrified to interact with another llvm
> developer in a social setting.
> 
>  
> 
> That would be sad, but i guess i'm not sure what is causing that. Is it
that there is discretion in there that you are afraid may apply to you if taken
to some extreme?
> 
>  
> 
> Rafael
> 
> On 30 June 2016 at 14:55, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev
> 
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong) series of
> > discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project
as a
> > whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
> > code review.
> >
> > The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the
end
> > there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now.
It
> > isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around
forming
> > the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording is
at a
> > good point of compromise in a challenging area.
> >
> > Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the draft.
I’m
> > hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and I’m
> > hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee and
> > resolving any issues around reporting so we can make this an official
part
> > of the community.
> >
> > I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a new
> > discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on
llvm-dev if
> > folks want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh ones,
but I
> > would encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has
already
> > taken place to avoid revisiting areas that have already been heavily
> > discussed.
> >
> > Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on the
> > mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this
topic.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Chandler
> >
> > [1]: Prior announcements:
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html
> >
> > [2]: Existing threads:
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html
> >
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html
> >
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> 
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Jim Rowan
jmr at codeaurora.org
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the
Linux Foundation



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160630/531666c7/attachment.html>

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Jim Rowan <jmr at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> I don’t know what you meant to imply by “residual clause” —
>
Sorry, it's a reference to what is usually the last clause in some set of
proscribed or allowed behavior in a law, because they are usually vague.
IE

You will get in trouble if you do
A. something specific
B. something specific
C. something specific
D. or if you do something not exactly A-C but equally as bad.


if you meant “it’s not particularly important”, then I suggest it is
left
> out entirely.
>
No, it's important, they are just deliberately vague.

> Apparently at least a few of us have interpreted it to say “the committee
> reserves the right to kick you out for any behaviour that violates our
> standards which you exhibit anywhere, even if it is completely unrelated to
> the llvm community”.
>
That honestly seems like a pretty uncharitable interpretation.
If that actually happens, great, we can fix it.

There are good reasons facial challenges (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge) are heavily disfavored.

> Personally, I’m just going to ignore it, and thus don’t really care
> whether it stays or goes — but I do find it overreaching and intrusive, and
> completely inappropriate in such a code of conduct.
>
I'm going to pretty strongly disagree, so i'll leave it at that.
>
>
> On Jun 30, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> That's just a residual clause.
> It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities here (IE if
> you stalk and murder someone in the llvm community, you are going to get
> kicked out of the community, regardless of if you did it in a controlled
> space)
> I mean, i'm subject to legal ethics rules that are very similar, and
those
> could get me kicked out of an entire profession :)
>
> I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside
> these spaces may, in rare
> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the
> conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social
> standard."
>
> But it's not, in practice, any different.
>
> Basically, if you are looking for complete and total bright line
> proscribed standards, they pretty much don't exist anywhere except in
> criminal statutes :)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 2:45 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at
sony.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I expect Rafael's concern is because the code also says:
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare
>> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them.
>>
>>
>>
>> So it can apply outside spaces explicitly sponsored by LLVM, in
undefined
>> circumstances.
>>
>> --paulr
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf
Of *Daniel
>> Berlin via cfe-dev
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 30, 2016 1:37 PM
>> *To:* Rafael Espíndola
>> *Cc:* llvm-dev; cfe-dev; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org);
LLDB
>> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for
>> an LLVM Code of Conduct
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> I am strongly opposed to it as it stands.
>>
>> Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of
>> conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in
>> channels not related to llvm at all.
>>
>> errr, it says:
>>
>> "This code of conduct applies to all spaces managed by the LLVM
project
>> or The
>>
>> LLVM Foundation. This includes IRC channels, mailing lists, bug
trackers,
>> LLVM
>>
>> vents such as the developer meetings and socials, and any other forums
>> created
>>
>> by the project that the community uses for communication. "
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How does this cover channels not related to llvm?
>>
>>
>>
>> With this in place I will not consider myself a member of the llvm
>> community anymore and would be terrified to interact with another llvm
>> developer in a social setting.
>>
>>
>>
>> That would be sad, but i guess i'm not sure what is causing that.
Is it
>> that there is discretion in there that you are afraid may apply to you
if
>> taken to some extreme?
>>
>>
>>
>> Rafael
>>
>> On 30 June 2016 at 14:55, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev
>>
>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > Hello folks,
>> >
>> > As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong)
series of
>> > discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM
project
>> as a
>> > whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the
>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
>> > code review.
>> >
>> > The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards
the end
>> > there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have
now. It
>> > isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around
>> forming
>> > the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the
wording is
>> at a
>> > good point of compromise in a challenging area.
>> >
>> > Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the
draft.
>> I’m
>> > hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and
I’m
>> > hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee
and
>> > resolving any issues around reporting so we can make this an
official
>> part
>> > of the community.
>> >
>> > I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a
new
>> > discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on
llvm-dev
>> if
>> > folks want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh
ones, but
>> I
>> > would encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has
already
>> > taken place to avoid revisiting areas that have already been
heavily
>> > discussed.
>> >
>> > Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on
the
>> > mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this
topic.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > -Chandler
>> >
>> > [1]: Prior announcements:
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html
>> >
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html
>> >
>> > [2]: Existing threads:
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html
>> >
>>
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html
>> >
>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cfe-dev mailing list
>> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> Jim Rowan
> jmr at codeaurora.org
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted
> by the Linux Foundation
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160630/6dca5652/attachment.html>

I guess the point is that, for some, not having that clause, causes
discomfort and reduce their contribution. For others, having that clause
causes discomfort and reduce their contribution.

I don't think one is more important than the other, nor I think we should
see this as which side makes more contributions.

Daniel's version, although similar, is clearer, and may discourage abuse
even more that Chandler's original fix. I'm OK with that, too.

I guess I prefer to be reactive. If people start abusing, I'll make some
comments, then some noise, than official complaints to the board, etc. If
none of that works, getting out of here is the obvious choice. But that
will take an impressive amount of abuse and carelessness, and the community
will be already fragmented by then.

My tuppence.
Renato
On 30 Jun 2016 11:11 p.m., "Daniel Berlin via cfe-dev" <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> That's just a residual clause.
> It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities here (IE if
> you stalk and murder someone in the llvm community, you are going to get
> kicked out of the community, regardless of if you did it in a controlled
> space)
> I mean, i'm subject to legal ethics rules that are very similar, and
those
> could get me kicked out of an entire profession :)
>
> I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside
> these spaces may, in rare
> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the
> conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social
> standard."
>
> But it's not, in practice, any different.
>
> Basically, if you are looking for complete and total bright line
> proscribed standards, they pretty much don't exist anywhere except in
> criminal statutes :)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 2:45 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at
sony.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I expect Rafael's concern is because the code also says:
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare
>> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them.
>>
>>
>>
>> So it can apply outside spaces explicitly sponsored by LLVM, in
undefined
>> circumstances.
>>
>> --paulr
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf
Of *Daniel
>> Berlin via cfe-dev
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 30, 2016 1:37 PM
>> *To:* Rafael Espíndola
>> *Cc:* llvm-dev; cfe-dev; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org);
LLDB
>> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for
>> an LLVM Code of Conduct
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> I am strongly opposed to it as it stands.
>>
>> Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of
>> conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in
>> channels not related to llvm at all.
>>
>> errr, it says:
>>
>> "This code of conduct applies to all spaces managed by the LLVM
project
>> or The
>>
>> LLVM Foundation. This includes IRC channels, mailing lists, bug
trackers,
>> LLVM
>>
>> vents such as the developer meetings and socials, and any other forums
>> created
>>
>> by the project that the community uses for communication. "
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How does this cover channels not related to llvm?
>>
>>
>>
>> With this in place I will not consider myself a member of the llvm
>> community anymore and would be terrified to interact with another llvm
>> developer in a social setting.
>>
>>
>>
>> That would be sad, but i guess i'm not sure what is causing that.
Is it
>> that there is discretion in there that you are afraid may apply to you
if
>> taken to some extreme?
>>
>>
>>
>> Rafael
>>
>> On 30 June 2016 at 14:55, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev
>>
>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > Hello folks,
>> >
>> > As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong)
series of
>> > discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM
project
>> as a
>> > whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the
>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
>> > code review.
>> >
>> > The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards
the end
>> > there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have
now. It
>> > isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around
>> forming
>> > the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the
wording is
>> at a
>> > good point of compromise in a challenging area.
>> >
>> > Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the
draft.
>> I’m
>> > hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and
I’m
>> > hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee
and
>> > resolving any issues around reporting so we can make this an
official
>> part
>> > of the community.
>> >
>> > I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a
new
>> > discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on
llvm-dev
>> if
>> > folks want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh
ones, but
>> I
>> > would encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has
already
>> > taken place to avoid revisiting areas that have already been
heavily
>> > discussed.
>> >
>> > Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on
the
>> > mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this
topic.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > -Chandler
>> >
>> > [1]: Prior announcements:
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html
>> >
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html
>> >
>> > [2]: Existing threads:
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html
>> >
>>
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html
>> >
>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cfe-dev mailing list
>> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160630/b487696b/attachment-0001.html>

| It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities
Not looking for that.  Looking to avoid being trolled.  ("Trolled"
isn't the right word here but I've lost track of what the right one is.
Hopefully my intent is clear enough.)

| I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside
these spaces may, in rare
cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the
conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social
standard."

If that's what it means, is there a problem with writing it that way?

| But it's not, in practice, any different.
I concede it's not any different to a lawyer, which I know you are; most of
us are not lawyers.  Again, if it's not any different, is there a problem
with writing it in a way that provides clarity to the non-lawyer population?
Thanks,
--paulr

From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 3:11 PM
To: Robinson, Paul; Rafael Espíndola
Cc: LLDB; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; llvm-dev; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at
lists.llvm.org)
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM
Code of Conduct

That's just a residual clause.
It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities here (IE if you
stalk and murder someone in the llvm community, you are going to get kicked out
of the community, regardless of if you did it in a controlled space)
I mean, i'm subject to legal ethics rules that are very similar, and those
could get me kicked out of an entire profession :)

I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside these
spaces may, in rare
cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the
conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social
standard."

But it's not, in practice, any different.

Basically, if you are looking for complete and total bright line proscribed
standards, they pretty much don't exist anywhere except in criminal statutes
:)



On Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 2:45 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at
sony.com<mailto:paul.robinson at sony.com>> wrote:
I expect Rafael's concern is because the code also says:

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

So it can apply outside spaces explicitly sponsored by LLVM, in undefined
circumstances.
--paulr

From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>] On Behalf Of
Daniel Berlin via cfe-dev
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 1:37 PM
To: Rafael Espíndola
Cc: llvm-dev; cfe-dev; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>); LLDB
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM
Code of Conduct



On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
I am strongly opposed to it as it stands.

Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of
conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in
channels not related to llvm at all.
errr, it says:
"This code of conduct applies to all spaces managed by the LLVM project or
The
LLVM Foundation. This includes IRC channels, mailing lists, bug trackers, LLVM
vents such as the developer meetings and socials, and any other forums created
by the project that the community uses for communication. "


How does this cover channels not related to llvm?

With this in place I will not consider myself a member of the llvm
community anymore and would be terrified to interact with another llvm
developer in a social setting.

That would be sad, but i guess i'm not sure what is causing that. Is it that
there is discretion in there that you are afraid may apply to you if taken to
some extreme?

Rafael

On 30 June 2016 at 14:55, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong) series of
> discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project as a
> whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
> code review.
>
> The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the end
> there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now. It
> isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around forming
> the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording is at a
> good point of compromise in a challenging area.
>
> Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the draft. I’m
> hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and I’m
> hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee and
> resolving any issues around reporting so we can make this an official part
> of the community.
>
> I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a new
> discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on llvm-dev if
> folks want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh ones, but I
> would encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has already
> taken place to avoid revisiting areas that have already been heavily
> discussed.
>
> Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on the
> mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this topic.
>
> Thanks,
> -Chandler
>
> [1]: Prior announcements:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html
>
> [2]: Existing threads:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html
>
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto: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/20160701/af8d7b88/attachment.html>

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
wrote:
> | It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities
>
> Not looking for that.  Looking to avoid being trolled. 
("Trolled" isn't
> the right word here but I've lost track of what the right one is.
Hopefully
> my intent is clear enough.)
>
I'm really not sure what you mean here.


>
>
> | I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code
outside
> these spaces may, in rare
>
> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the
> conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social
> standard."
>
>
>
> If that's what it means, is there a problem with writing it that way?
>
What do you believe that explains that the older version did not?
No matter how you write it, it will not precisely define the conduct that
will or will not get you kicked out.


>
>
> | But it's not, in practice, any different.
>
> I concede it's not any different to a lawyer, which I know you are;
most
> of us are not lawyers.
>
That's not really relevant of course - i meant that it's not any
different
in practice than any other set of social conduct rules one is subject to.

I doubt, for example, either the Google or Sony employee handbooks have
precise bright lines on what conduct is okay and not okay.   Yet they still
have serious consequences.

> Again, if it's not any different, is there a problem with writing it in
a
> way that provides clarity to the non-lawyer population?
>
I don't think any way you write it will provide clarity as to precisely
what conduct will and will not be okay.

Anyway, since I don't think what you seem to want is possible, and I think
it's fine as-is.
But I understand if you disagree.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160701/a6437c90/attachment.html>