llvm dev - Feb 2020 - Code of Conduct Next Steps - Community feedback needed

> On Feb 17, 2020, at 10:06 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tanya,
> 
> Is there a reason for hosting things for review on Google Docs?  We
currently have both Phabricator and GitHub that work for review of any
text-based format.  When I click on a Google Docs link, I am asked to agree to a
privacy policy that is very vague and I am somewhat uncomfortable agreeing to
it.
> 
David,

I understand not everyone wants to use Google docs which was why I gave an
option to reply via email as well. My intention on using Google docs is really
just based on my experience using it for docs that span different groups of
people and it is what I primarily use for text documents.

I would like everyone to feel like they have a way to respond and provide
feedback so please let me know if the options I have given do not work.

Thanks,
Tanya
> Thank you,
> 
> David
> 
>> On 16/02/2020 17:51, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev wrote:
>> LLVM Community,
>> The LLVM Code of Conduct has been in draft mode for several years now.
In order to finalize the Code of Conduct, there are 3 steps left to complete:
>> 1.
>>    Draft an Incident Response Guide. This guide is intended for someone
who is considering reporting a potential code of conduct violation. You can view
and comment on the proposed guide here (or by email if you
prefer):https://docs.google.com/document/d/10LClyw1x1e4OIiKFFRqklbZ2D_xwZz85HZ7kWwZ_yys/edit?usp=sharing
>> 2.
>>    Draft a Response Guide. This guide is intended for members of the
code of conduct committee or organizers of an event. You can view and comment on
the proposed guide here (or by email if you prefer):
>>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dEvF9NwZdaDLQNPVBudipdFiZ0E553Lz3qOqeCsfpNk/edit?usp=sharing
>> 3.
>>    Form code of conduct committee. This committee will be responsible
for responding to code of conduct reports as described in the response guide.
The LLVM Foundation board will propose the initial members of this committee and
provide a period of time to collect feedback from members of the community.
>> In order to keep this process running smoothly and moving forward, we
would appreciate getting any  community feedback within the next two weeks..
>> Some previous Code of Conduct discussions have been difficult - please
remember to treat others with respect and kindness in your response.
>> Thanks,
>> Tanya
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 8:56 AM Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2020, at 10:06 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tanya,
> >
> > Is there a reason for hosting things for review on Google Docs?  We
> currently have both Phabricator and GitHub that work for review of any
> text-based format.  When I click on a Google Docs link, I am asked to agree
> to a privacy policy that is very vague and I am somewhat uncomfortable
> agreeing to it.
> >
>
> David,
>
> I understand not everyone wants to use Google docs which was why I gave an
> option to reply via email as well. My intention on using Google docs is
> really just based on my experience using it for docs that span different
> groups of people and it is what I primarily use for text documents.
>
> I would like everyone to feel like they have a way to respond and provide
> feedback so please let me know if the options I have given do not work.
>

I won't be actively participating in this, but I will be read-only
following it. I like github for this as well since it could be easier to
track the precise questions/objections and track that flow to resolution.
Compared to google docs which is like what a secretary might send to the
boss, but I've never seen used to handle a technical issue like this. To me
this is "code" and I'd love to see how questions are asked and how
that
discussion evolves until resolution. Like a github issue.. Maybe google
docs has this and I've just been missing it. There's also the question
of
how transparent you want this process to be and if you want it to be
accessible to every llvm developer. Telling David to just email you or
making him agree to some Google privacy thing isn't a very warm, friendly
or productive start.

David - I'd propose to get a copy of things in their current state and just
fork it to github. Then invite others to open issues against it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200218/fe89b968/attachment.html>

I find this response quite offense. I am not a secretary sending an email to my
boss. My intent is not malicious. I asked him if the methods I proposed were not
sufficient as my goal is to include all input. Google docs is not an invalid way
to collaborate  on a text document. Is one way among many. It is not code in the
purest form of the word which we can debate. But that is not the point. No
format is perfect. Some people may be against github or Phabricator as the don’t
want want an account there or don’t like it for text documents.

I would really appreciate some thinking that I am not just trying to be
disagreeable or not trying to be flexible. I am not an evil person. I am
actually trying to do a good thing and meet the needs of as many individuals as
possible.

-Tanya
> On Feb 17, 2020, at 5:04 PM, C Bergström <cbergstrom at
pathscale.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 8:56 AM Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > On Feb 17, 2020, at 10:06 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Hi Tanya,
>> > 
>> > Is there a reason for hosting things for review on Google Docs? 
We currently have both Phabricator and GitHub that work for review of any
text-based format.  When I click on a Google Docs link, I am asked to agree to a
privacy policy that is very vague and I am somewhat uncomfortable agreeing to
it.
>> > 
>> 
>> David,
>> 
>> I understand not everyone wants to use Google docs which was why I gave
an option to reply via email as well. My intention on using Google docs is
really just based on my experience using it for docs that span different groups
of people and it is what I primarily use for text documents.
>> 
>> I would like everyone to feel like they have a way to respond and
provide feedback so please let me know if the options I have given do not work.
> 
> 
> I won't be actively participating in this, but I will be read-only
following it. I like github for this as well since it could be easier to track
the precise questions/objections and track that flow to resolution. Compared to
google docs which is like what a secretary might send to the boss, but I've
never seen used to handle a technical issue like this. To me this is
"code" and I'd love to see how questions are asked and how that
discussion evolves until resolution. Like a github issue.. Maybe google docs has
this and I've just been missing it. There's also the question of how
transparent you want this process to be and if you want it to be accessible to
every llvm developer. Telling David to just email you or making him agree to
some Google privacy thing isn't a very warm, friendly or productive start.
> 
> David - I'd propose to get a copy of things in their current state and
just fork it to github. Then invite others to open issues against it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200217/13fa51dc/attachment.html>

Hi Tanya,

On 18/02/2020 00:56, Tanya Lattner wrote:
> I understand not everyone wants to use Google docs which was why I gave an
option to reply via email as well. My intention on using Google docs is really
just based on my experience using it for docs that span different groups of
people and it is what I primarily use for text documents.
As I understand it from the pop-ups on the page, I cannot *read* a 
Google doc without agreeing to a somewhat invasive privacy policy.  As 
such, an option to reply via email does not help me if my goal is to 
avoid agreeing to this policy.

Irrespective of your intent (and I strongly believe that this is not 
your intention) or the value of the tools, the message that you are 
sending is being received as 'you must agree to Google's privacy policy 
to participate in discussions that are core to the LLVM community'. 
Your replies in this thread are being perceived as the LLVM Foundation 
does not care and does not value the privacy of its constituency.

The CoC draft currently on the LLVM web site states:

 > Be considerate. Your work will be used by other people, and you in 
turn will depend on the work of others. Any decision you take will 
affect users and colleagues, and you should take those consequences into 
account

During the switch to GitHub, there were very long discussions about 
moving to a tool that is blocked in some countries, is under the control 
of a single company, and requires signing up to a fairly complex set of 
T&Cs to use.  The consensus (though not unanimous) view was that the 
benefits significantly outweighed the costs.  This deliberation process 
took several months and the community heard many arguments on both sides.

A similar discussion took place with regards to Discord and the privacy 
policy there was seen as a reason that a sufficiently large proportion 
of the community would not wish to participate that it was a problem. 
There has been no such deliberation on the merits of Google Docs (or 
Office 365, or any other proprietary document hosting service).

If placing this on Google Docs was your personal decision and not any 
form of official LLVM Foundation policy, then I would ask that you 
reflect on what I have said and place it in a more inclusive location, 
such as a Phabricator diff to the existing CoC.

David

On 02/18/2020 02:55 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev
wrote:
> Hi Tanya,
> 
> On 18/02/2020 00:56, Tanya Lattner wrote:
>> I understand not everyone wants to use Google docs which was why I gave
an option to reply via email as well. My intention on using Google docs is
really just based on my experience using it for docs that span different groups
of people and it is what I primarily use for text documents.
> 
> As I understand it from the pop-ups on the page, I cannot *read* a Google
doc without agreeing to a somewhat invasive privacy policy.  As such, an option
to reply via email does not help me if my goal is to avoid agreeing to this
policy.
> 
> Irrespective of your intent (and I strongly believe that this is not your
intention) or the value of the tools, the message that you are sending is being
received as 'you must agree to Google's privacy policy to participate in
discussions that are core to the LLVM community'. Your replies in this
thread are being perceived as the LLVM Foundation does not care and does not
value the privacy of its constituency.
> 
> The CoC draft currently on the LLVM web site states:
> 
>> Be considerate. Your work will be used by other people, and you in turn
will depend on the work of others. Any decision you take will affect users and
colleagues, and you should take those consequences into account
> 
> During the switch to GitHub, there were very long discussions about moving
to a tool that is blocked in some countries, is under the control of a single
company, and requires signing up to a fairly complex set of T&Cs to use. 
The consensus (though not unanimous) view was that the benefits significantly
outweighed the costs.  This deliberation process took several months and the
community heard many arguments on both sides.
> 
> A similar discussion took place with regards to Discord and the privacy
policy there was seen as a reason that a sufficiently large proportion of the
community would not wish to participate that it was a problem. There has been no
such deliberation on the merits of Google Docs (or Office 365, or any other
proprietary document hosting service).
> 
> If placing this on Google Docs was your personal decision and not any form
of official LLVM Foundation policy, then I would ask that you reflect on what I
have said and place it in a more inclusive location, such as a Phabricator diff
to the existing CoC.
> 
To be clear, we (LLVM Foundation Board), reviewed the email and the use of
Google
docs, this was not Tanya's personal decision.

Our intention was not to exclude anyone.  We have heard your feedback and will
work on making the document accessible in some other way.

-Tom

  
> David
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 2:55 AM David Chisnall via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi Tanya,
>
> On 18/02/2020 00:56, Tanya Lattner wrote:
> > I understand not everyone wants to use Google docs which was why I
gave
> an option to reply via email as well. My intention on using Google docs is
> really just based on my experience using it for docs that span different
> groups of people and it is what I primarily use for text documents.
>
> As I understand it from the pop-ups on the page, I cannot *read* a
> Google doc without agreeing to a somewhat invasive privacy policy.  As
> such, an option to reply via email does not help me if my goal is to
> avoid agreeing to this policy.
>
I wonder what kind of popup you got? I opened the link in a "private
window" of my browser, I am not logged into any Google service, and the doc
just opens directly without any popup. I can also comment
"anonymously" on
the document apparently. I would expect that the experience I relate here
is "privacy friendly"? (I'm curious why you didn't get the
same, maybe
connecting from Europe imposes the popup?).


>
> Irrespective of your intent (and I strongly believe that this is not
> your intention) or the value of the tools, the message that you are
> sending is being received as 'you must agree to Google's privacy
policy
> to participate in discussions that are core to the LLVM community'.
> Your replies in this thread are being perceived as the LLVM Foundation
> does not care and does not value the privacy of its constituency.
>
> The CoC draft currently on the LLVM web site states:
>
>  > Be considerate. Your work will be used by other people, and you in
> turn will depend on the work of others. Any decision you take will
> affect users and colleagues, and you should take those consequences into
> account
>
> During the switch to GitHub, there were very long discussions about
> moving to a tool that is blocked in some countries, is under the control
> of a single company, and requires signing up to a fairly complex set of
> T&Cs to use.  The consensus (though not unanimous) view was that the
> benefits significantly outweighed the costs.  This deliberation process
> took several months and the community heard many arguments on both sides.
>
> A similar discussion took place with regards to Discord and the privacy
> policy there was seen as a reason that a sufficiently large proportion
> of the community would not wish to participate that it was a problem.
> There has been no such deliberation on the merits of Google Docs (or
> Office 365, or any other proprietary document hosting service).
>
> If placing this on Google Docs was your personal decision and not any
> form of official LLVM Foundation policy, then I would ask that you
> reflect on what I have said and place it in a more inclusive location,
> such as a Phabricator diff to the existing CoC.
>
> David
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20200218/290c8d4b/attachment.html>