[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.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741#422188, @rafael wrote:

> 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".


I don't agree, but please raise this on the llvm-dev thread rather than here because I'd like to avoid having two separate discussions about the core substance.

Same suggestion for Colin. If you want to object to the core idea here, please do so on the llvm-dev thread where most of the substantive discussion is taking place.

Below I'm trying to focus on the really excellent wording comments, thanks Renato and others.


================
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,
----------------
rengolin wrote:
> "social and economic status" is less crass, I think.
I don't really disagree, but I'm not sure this is important enough to deviate from the existing practice that this wording is based on. I don't feel strongly either way though.

================
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:
> 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).
I'm not sure this really helps though -- it seems to make the long list more awkward than it helps to me. But if this is helping lots of folks, cool.

================
Comment at: docs/CodeOfConduct.rst:50-52
@@ +49,5 @@
+  a personal attack. It’s important to remember that a community where people
+  feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. Members of the LLVM
+  community should be respectful when dealing with other members as well as
+  with people outside the LLVM community.
+
----------------
zturner wrote:
> Not crazy about this line.  Why are members of the LLVM community special in this regard?  Everyone should be respectful to everyone, that's just being a good person.  But you can't police that.  Sure, we can police it within our community, but outside?  If I go to a political protest and I'm shouting at someone, all of a sudden I'm not "being respectful to people outside the LLVM community."
> 
> This is an LLVM code of conduct, not a life code of conduct.  Please don't attempt to police peoples' actions outside of the LLVM community.
The top of the document tries to indicate that this is meant to guide behavior within LLVM community spaces. The wording here just means that these guidelines apply to people not usually part of the community but communicating within those spaces.

Yes, there is a clause about behavior outside of LLVM spaces because without that really bad behavior can "dodge" the code and it becomes meaningless. We're working on ideas to scope it even more narrowly in wording, but the intent is certainly that this doesn't apply to completely unrelated activities.

If your concern is higher level than a wording concern, as with others I would suggest you voice that on the main llvm-dev thread.

================
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
----------------
rengolin wrote:
> "... 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.
I would hope that the code has sufficiently broad wording to cover exactly what you said...

Maybe the issue is that "If you believe someone is ..." is a fairly definite statement? We could say:

  If you think someone might be ...

or

  If you believe someone might be ...

================
Comment at: docs/ReportingGuide.rst:37
@@ +36,3 @@
+   cases or cases where the reporting party does not whish to respond directly
+   for any reason.
+
----------------
rengolin wrote:
> 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?
I wouldn't use the word "prefer" because that seems to mean using other means isn't "preferred". But it is definitely intended as encouragement and support of this behavior when done well.

================
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.
----------------
rengolin wrote:
> 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.
I've switched to "individuals involved" as elsewhere. I agree this should jsut be generic.


http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741