similar to: Conduct on the CentOS List

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

On 6 May 2016 at 22:21, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> How many is "many, many", actually? How many of these are really in fear, how many are just trying to impose their mindset without actually planning to contribute in earnest, how many are so fearful that they should really seek professional help? > > And this is illustrating my

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

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:32 AM Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 10/14/2015 8:22 AM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > Stop possible future harrassment before it can happen. > > > > It's a legitimate concern actually. > > CoC is not going to stop or prevent any harassment. Do you have any data to

Am 06.05.2016 um 01:26 schrieb Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev: > > There are > many many people who aren’t even commenting at all because they fear > being attacked in this thread. Now you're contradicting LLVM's own description that it's a friendly community. Also: How many is "many, many", actually? How many of these are really in fear, how many are just trying

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Pasi Parviainen via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 14.10.2015 23:36, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote: > >> * **Be welcoming.** We strive to be a community that welcomes and supports >> people of all backgrounds and identities. This includes, but is not >> limited >> to members of any race,

Weighing in as a mostly-lurker: A CoC is a great idea. I'm ok with Chandler's current draft. I'm ok with his first draft. I'm ok with just adopting a standard one like Swift did. I think it's important to enumerate several of the most common kinds of harassment, and it's understood that it's not a comprehensive list. I think the pedantry of this thread is unwarranted;

Greetings all, First off, thanks to everyone who contributed to the initial discussion thread. Judging by the responses from that thread, there seems to pretty broad interest in pursuing this. There also seem to be a few concerns. =] I'm including an updated draft based on the feedback, and I'll also try to break down the major points I've seen of discussion. Sorry for the long email,

Am 14.10.2015 um 14:57 schrieb Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev: > Is there an ongoing problem with the types of discussions on this, and > other LLVM-related lists? Not currently. > What problem is the proposed CoC trying to solve? Stop possible future harrassment before it can happen. It's a legitimate concern actually.

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

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:16 AM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 13 October 2015 at 18:59, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > We have *not* appointed any such committee at this point. > > (...) > > The appeal is to the board of the Foundation. I don't expect the board to > > *be* the committee

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > +1 to the general idea of a CoC > > A couple of specific thoughts: > > 1) It would have been nice for this not to appeared out of thin air. In an ideal world, a previous update would have mentioned ongoing thought and research in this area. > Some back story here. I

On 9 May 2016 at 03:07, C Bergström <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > As activity on the thread dies down and I guess it has been socialized > to the point of annoyance (myself and probably others based on private > emails).. I'll assume the current draft is mostly stable, but to > confirm, Chandler are you done playing with your CoC? I personally think the code is fine

Am 13.10.2015 um 12:52 schrieb Renato Golin via llvm-dev: > On 13 October 2015 at 02:42, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> On behalf of the board of the LLVM Foundation, I’d like to start the process >> of introducing a formal code of conduct for the community. > > Hi Chandler, > > I agree we need such guidelines, and I truly

Marc, There is a strategy loosely referred to as "choose your battles well" :-) Let the others bother with their own problems. If you can, hack the server and dump the 500GB - you'll be using resources transferring the 500GB as the other server receives it. Two servers wasting resources because you think you are punishing an offender! On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 13:43, Marc Roos

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:20:33PM +0100, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > On 13 October 2015 at 19:30, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > > For some of the reasons we at least need to make it clear the scope: > > http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/ > > Seems like a very personal opinion, and most

> Am 11.04.2019 um 12:43 schrieb Marc Roos via dovecot <dovecot at dovecot.org>: > > Please do not assume anything other than what is written, it is a > hypothetical situation > > > A. With the fail2ban solution > - you 'solve' that the current ip is not able to access you > - it will continue bothering other servers and admins > - you get the

Looks like the mpeg gestapo are frantically at work cracking down on mpeg projects. Several important projects (tsunami mpeg, gogo, faac, etc) were shut down by the jack booted patent nazis. Since FhG, mpegla, etc plan to start charging royalties on everything even remotely mpeg-related very soon, I expect a lot of interest is going to shift to Vorbis. And soon thereafter, I expect FhG to attack

Greetings everyone, On behalf of the board of the LLVM Foundation, I’d like to start the process of introducing a formal code of conduct for the community. For a long time, various members of the community have been enforcing basic reasonable and respectful behavior, but to an outsider this may not be obvious. A public code of conduct advertises the behavior we expect of community members and

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 13:24, Marc Roos via dovecot <dovecot at dovecot.org> wrote: > > > Say for instance you have some one trying to constantly access an > account > > > Has any of you made something creative like this: > > * configure that account to allow to login with any password > * link that account to something like /dev/zero that generates infinite