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

On 4 Jul 2016, at 12:27, Renato Golin via Openmp-dev <openmp-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On 4 July 2016 at 00:42, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
wrote:
>> Daniel claimed it was not different, even though he proposed the text.
>> I think it is better, as "egregious" (even though it is
qualitative)
>> helps identify what "rare" circumstances would come under the
policy.
>> As a non-lawyer I do think it's different.
> 
> I personally agree with you, both on helping identify "rare" (as
what,
> not when), and for easing non-lawyers minds.
The simplest solution would probably be to have a separate advisory document
listing informally examples of things that would and wouldn’t be covered by the
CoC.  For example:

Stalking a member of the LLVM community: Covered.

Inciting harassment of a member of the LLVM community in social media: Covered

Sending rude emails to a member of the LLVM community with whom you have a
relationship outside of the project: Probably not covered, unless it’s directly
related to LLVM

Some example that people are worried would constitute overreach: Not covered

Some other examples that people are concerned must be covered: Covered

This document would provide guidance for the CoC enforcement committee, but
would not be part of the official CoC.

David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3719 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160706/0df25b51/attachment.bin>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr D. Chisnall [mailto:dc552 at hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of David
> Chisnall
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 1:48 AM
> To: Renato Golin
> Cc: Robinson, Paul; Daniel Berlin; llvm-dev; openmp-dev (openmp-
> dev at lists.llvm.org); LLDB; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; Rafael Espíndola
> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the
> initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct
> 
> On 4 Jul 2016, at 12:27, Renato Golin via Openmp-dev <openmp-
> dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 4 July 2016 at 00:42, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at
sony.com> wrote:
> >> Daniel claimed it was not different, even though he proposed the
text.
> >> I think it is better, as "egregious" (even though it is
qualitative)
> >> helps identify what "rare" circumstances would come
under the policy.
> >> As a non-lawyer I do think it's different.
> >
> > I personally agree with you, both on helping identify "rare"
(as what,
> > not when), and for easing non-lawyers minds.
> 
> The simplest solution would probably be to have a separate advisory
> document listing informally examples of things that would and wouldn’t be
> covered by the CoC.  For example:
As Daniel pointed out, an enumeration like that knows no bounds, and
starting a list invites endless what-if questions.  That's why I settled
for a more qualitative statement; we have to acknowledge that ultimately
there's a judgement call on the part of the enforcement committee, but
the wording as it was felt a little too wide-open for me.
--paulr
> 
> Stalking a member of the LLVM community: Covered.
> 
> Inciting harassment of a member of the LLVM community in social media:
> Covered
> 
> Sending rude emails to a member of the LLVM community with whom you have a
> relationship outside of the project: Probably not covered, unless it’s
> directly related to LLVM
> 
> Some example that people are worried would constitute overreach: Not
> covered
> 
> Some other examples that people are concerned must be covered: Covered
> 
> This document would provide guidance for the CoC enforcement committee,
> but would not be part of the official CoC.
> 
> David

On 6 Jul 2016, at 16:16, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
wrote:
> 
> As Daniel pointed out, an enumeration like that knows no bounds, and
> starting a list invites endless what-if questions.  That's why I
settled
> for a more qualitative statement; we have to acknowledge that ultimately
> there's a judgement call on the part of the enforcement committee, but
> the wording as it was felt a little too wide-open for me.
That I was explicitly *not* what I was suggesting an enumeration of all possible
cases, I was suggesting an additional document describing hypothetical case
studies and whether they would be covered.  There is ample precedent for this in
law (for example, much of the tax code in the UK comes along with guidance
notes, which are not considered legally binding but provide people with rough
rules of thumb) and does not degenerate into an attempt to list every possible
case.

David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3719 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160706/01d1b8e3/attachment-0001.bin>