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

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jul 1 10:39:58 PDT 2016


| I don't actually disagree with your criticism, IMHO, i just don't know of a way to generate more clarity.

Well that's something anyway.  Thanks.
--paulr

From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:32 AM
To: Robinson, Paul
Cc: Rafael EspĂ­ndola; 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



On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com<mailto:paul.robinson at sony.com>> wrote:
I'm not sure why you're stuck on thinking I want an enumeration of offenses.
Sorry, it's because  i don't see a way to give you the below without it :)
What I'm looking for (and AFAICT also Rafael and maybe other people) is a clearer statement that "offenses" outside of LLVM-defined spaces need to meet a much higher bar to be considered problematic within the LLVM community.

How would you define that bar without defining the offenses?
IE what do you think would make it less subject to vague discretion than what is there now other than defining the offenses?

Someone tripping over my posting on the Militant Flat Earth Society should not get a free pass to boot me out of LLVM.
The single word "rare" in the current code doesn't feel like enough.

I don't actually disagree with your criticism, IMHO, i just don't know of a way to generate more clarity.

--paulr

From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org<mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 7:46 AM
To: Robinson, Paul
Cc: Rafael EspĂ­ndola; LLDB; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>; llvm-dev; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>)
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct



On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com<mailto: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/cfe-dev/attachments/20160701/1f1bcc37/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the cfe-dev mailing list