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

[Rafael Espíndola via llvm-commits]

I am still opposed to this. I think think this fails to capture the
desire to codify the current practices, not change them. I am afraid
that doing this will push us in the direction of

https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/8bda440bb919b6b59ce24de8f077dc31211e3f5a

And we will spend time cleansing ourselves from "dominators" and "cargo cult".

Cheers,
Rafael



On 5 May 2016 at 06:00, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> rengolin added a comment.
>
> Hi Chandler,
>
> I think this is a much better version than the previous. Most of my comments below are on wording, with some added background to help.
>
> Thanks for working on this!
> --renato
>
>
> ================
> Comment at: docs/CodeOfConduct.rst:36
> @@ +35,3 @@
> +  to members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, colour,
> +  immigration status, social and economic class, educational level, sex, sexual
> +  orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size, family status,
> ----------------
> "social and economic status" is less crass, I think.
>
> ================
> 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.
> +
> ----------------
> Maybe put an "etc." at the end?
>
> Even though you said "not limited to", the "etc" usually comes along, as it helps people understand that this is not an exhaustive list (though it is exhausting to read and understand the difference between all of them, which I don't claim to).
>
> ================
> Comment at: docs/ReportingGuide.rst:10
> @@ +9,3 @@
> +
> +If you believe someone is violating the :doc:`code of conduct <CodeOfConduct>`
> +you can always report it to the LLVM Foundation Code of Conduct Advisory
> ----------------
> "... or felt harassed / uncomfortable / worried whatever in any other way..."
>
> I don't think we can catch everything in the Code, and I also don't think that "reporting" should be exclusively for things in the Code.
>
> ================
> Comment at: docs/ReportingGuide.rst:28
> @@ +27,3 @@
> +kept confidential exactly as above, but also feel free to (anonymously if
> +needed) email conduct at llvm.org if needed.
> +
> ----------------
> "if needed" repeated. I personally would remove the second, as "feel free" already implies "if needed".
>
> ================
> Comment at: docs/ReportingGuide.rst:37
> @@ +36,3 @@
> +   cases or cases where the reporting party does not whish to respond directly
> +   for any reason.
> +
> ----------------
> This is good.
>
> I read this saying we *prefer* to deal with issues as we have always done, but when that doesn't work, or the person is too shy/fragile (it's a deep wound, invisible threat), or they just don't know how to deal with it, they should try the board.
>
> Is that what everyone else reads, too?
>
> ================
> Comment at: docs/ReportingGuide.rst:48
> @@ +47,3 @@
> +* Names (real, nicknames, or pseudonyms) of any individuals involved. If there
> +  were other witnesses besides you, please try to include them as well.
> +* When and where the incident occurred. Please be as specific as possible.
> ----------------
> Including other people may need asking them first. Some people really don't like to be pulled into a conflict that is not theirs.
>
> ================
> Comment at: docs/ReportingGuide.rst:75
> @@ +74,3 @@
> +
> +The working group may choose to contact other parties involved or witnessing
> +the event to gain clarity on what happened and understand any different
> ----------------
> chandlerc wrote:
>> Philip, you had suggested wording here to me offline that said "may choose", I wonder if it would be better to say "will try"?
>>
>> While it may not be possible or reasonable to do, I think that every effort need to be made here. Thoughts?
> "will try" is better, as "may choose" indicates you don't need to even try.
>
> I think you really ought (try to) to contact *all* affected parties before *any* decision is taken, and this need to be clear.
>
> ================
> Comment at: docs/ReportingGuide.rst:82
> @@ +81,3 @@
> +
> +* Nothing if we determine no violation occurred or it has already been
> +  appropriately resolved.
> ----------------
> "Nothing, if we..."
>
> ================
> Comment at: docs/ReportingGuide.rst:86
> @@ +85,3 @@
> +  appropriate, safe, and desired by both parties).
> +* A private reprimand from the working group to the individual(s) involved.
> +* An imposed vacation (i.e. asking someone to "take a week off" from a mailing
> ----------------
> I'd take the ()'s, as assuming plural is always less accusatory.
>
> ================
> Comment at: docs/ReportingGuide.rst:99
> @@ +98,3 @@
> +reporter and other individual(s) to let them know what actions (if any) we'll
> +be taking. We will take into account feedback from the reporter on the
> +appropriateness of our response, but we don't guarantee we'll act on it.
> ----------------
> I'd rather say "people involved" than "reporter", since we should really take everyone's point of view into account, or this will end up as a one-sided deal.
>
> We're trying to resolve conflicts, which are composed by multiple people with different opinions. Bad behaviour is generally not alone, and fights usually mean both sides are wrong to at least some degree.
>
> It's perfectly possible that a reprimand will go to the reporter instead, so we shouldn't rule out those possibilities, or people will feel protected by the code and then abuse of it.
>
> ================
> Comment at: docs/ReportingGuide.rst:122
> @@ +121,3 @@
> +**please** refrain from mentioning specific facts about cases without the
> +explicit permission of all parties involved.
> +
> ----------------
> Excellent. This is a very necessary paragraph.
>
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
>
>
>