[PATCH] D13741: Introduce a *draft* of a code of conduct for the LLVM community and theassociated reporting guide.

[Chandler Carruth via llvm-commits]

chandlerc added a comment.

Numerous updates here. Many thanks for the reviews here to catch things I had missed.

I also have at least two updates here based on substantive comments on the main thread: the opening paragraph has been re-worded based on feedback from Rafael, and the wording around "professionals" has been shortened. I will post an update to the main thread to highlight this shortly.

Renato, to your primary comment, I think that the discussion of that is a very substantive discussion, and so is better held on the llvm-dev thread, and not here. As I have said, I'm trying to only focus on highly mechanical issues here because the patch review has substantially less visibility to the community.

Please see detailed comments inline.


================
Comment at: docs/CodeOfConduct.rst:34
@@ +33,3 @@
+* **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, ethnicity, culture, national origin, colour,
----------------
reames wrote:
> If you separate out the second sentence and intent it as a block quote, it will focus the eye on the key point (the first sentence) and away from the list (which is important, but not the focus).
How important is this? To me, the bold already conveys the emphasis necessary, and I'm hesitant to deviate further from the widely used format without a clear reason. I feel like indenting this won't make much of a difference and would be inconsistent with the rest of this section.

We could turn the list into a bulleted list as below, but that seems like it would not really help the situation.

While this is "just formatting", if you think we're straying too far into content or substantive debate, I'm happy to go back to the main thread and have the discussion there.

================
Comment at: docs/CodeOfConduct.rst:38
@@ +37,3 @@
+  orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size, family status,
+  political belief, religion or lack thereof, and mental and physical ability.
+
----------------
rengolin wrote:
> This list is too long and American centred. You're trying to include nomenclature that only makes sense in one country, to include more differences in that region and ignoring the differences in other regions. This can be seen as derogatory in itself, especially by the people not included in that list.
> 
> If you want to include specific classifications to help people feel included, you'll have to include them *all*. That'll warrant a search on every culture that LLVM has physical and electronic reach and what are their specific concerns.
> 
> The sensible alternative is to list the basic ones. The *key* here is in the text:
> 
>     This includes, but is not limited to
> 
> and also...
> 
>     This isn’t an exhaustive list of things that you can’t do. Rather, take it in the spirit in which it’s intended - a guide to make it easier to communicate and participate in the community.
> 
>     If you have questions, please feel free to contact the LLVM Foundation Code of ​Conduct Advisory Committee
> 
> My proposal:
> 
>     This includes, but is not limited to members of any ethnicity, gender, nationality, social status, personal choices, sexuality, religion, age or disability.
> 
> I also agree with Philip that blockquote will look better. Maybe bullet points like you have below for the behaviours.
I think this comment is much better addressed in the primary thread. This would be a substantive change and I don't want to dive into detailed substance here. Could you re-post your concern there?

================
Comment at: docs/CodeOfConduct.rst:47
@@ +46,3 @@
+* **Be respectful.** Not all of us will agree all the time, but disagreement is
+  no excuse for poor behavior and poor manners. We might all experience some
+  frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn into
----------------
reames wrote:
> Same indentation point here after first sentence.
Same reply. Will be consistent how ever that shakes out.

================
Comment at: docs/ReportingGuide.rst:25
@@ +24,3 @@
+reach out to any of the event organizers or staff to report it. If you cannot
+find one of the organizers, the hotel staff can locate one for you. We will
+also post detailed contact information for specific events as part of each
----------------
rengolin wrote:
>     s/hotel/venue/
> 
> Not all meetings are at hotels. :)
Great catch, fixed.

================
Comment at: docs/ReportingGuide.rst:47
@@ +46,3 @@
+
+The advisory committee will immediately meet to review the incident and
+determine:
----------------
rengolin wrote:
> Immediately is a strong word, and mostly applies to physical gatherings. I don't think you want to give the impression that there will be always someone on the reporter's time zone.
I would very much like the people we end up with on the advisory committee to wordsmith what this wording looks like. I think "as soon as possible" works here equally well, but I don't really care, and I suspect the people handling the reports will care more and I'd rather defer to them.

This seems like a fairly low-level wording detail (which is why I responded here), but if this is a serious concern of yours, you should raise it on the full thread so we ensure it has sufficient visibility. I'll try to respond there in kind.

================
Comment at: docs/ReportingGuide.rst:62
@@ +61,3 @@
+Once the advisory committee has a complete account of the events they will make
+a decision as to how to respond. Responses may include:
+
----------------
rengolin wrote:
> How can you possibly have a *complete* account on what happened if you don't take the accused's view?
I'd love to just respond to this as I think it is an easy bit of confusion to clear up, but I think this question would be better asked on the main thread and I'll try to respond there. Ultimately, this is a question about the *content*, and as I said I want that discussion to be on the wider forum, not in a patch review.

================
Comment at: docs/ReportingGuide.rst:71
@@ +70,3 @@
+* A request for a public or private apology.
+* Nothing (if we determine no violation occurred).
+
----------------
reames wrote:
> The moderation point got dropped here.  
Thanks, added back. I put it first. I don't really care where it goes.

================
Comment at: docs/ReportingGuide.rst:90
@@ +89,3 @@
+of the working group, contact the LLVM Foundation board at board at llvm.org with
+your appeal and the board will review the case.
+
----------------
rengolin wrote:
> I vehemently disagree with this for all but physical encounters. I believe every decision should allow being contested, and I also believe that others may be called by the accused to testify. If we're willing to resolve conflict, we either do it right, or we don't do at all.
> 
> This is the wording that is putting a lot of people on edge. There is ample scope for an unilateral, executive and final decision to be taken against people that cannot defend themselves because there is mechanism for them to do so. We have to fix both both problems:
> 
> 1. Guarantee that the accused will have his/her view considered with the same weight as the accuser.
> 
> 2. Guarantee that any decision can be contested by adding new information, or points of view.
> 
> The former is the only rational choice in a just society. The latter becomes harder to abuse as time (and repeat offences) go by, so it will naturally curb abuse on the side of the accused.
Again, I'm very happy to discuss this, but this really should be discussed on the main thread as it is a very substantive discussion.


http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741