[llvm-dev] RFC: Second draft of an LLVM Community Code of Conduct
Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Oct 20 02:28:41 PDT 2015
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 8:23 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>> people of all backgrounds and identities. This includes, but is not
>>> to members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, colour,
>>> immigration status, social and economic class, educational level, sex,
>>> orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size, family status,
>>> political belief, religion or lack thereof, and mental and physical
>> * **Be careful in the words that you choose.** We are a community of
>>> professionals, and we conduct ourselves professionally. Be kind to
>>> others. Do
>> What kind of professionals? Professional boxers perhaps? Who do have a
>> habit to get under the skin of the opponent with a insults before the match.
>> Rarely people in their teens, or early twenties would be considered as
>> professional on any area of expertise. So by claiming that community
>> consist of professionals, aren't you already discriminating against
>> individuals who do not have any professional (what ever it may be) interest
>> on the project?
> I agree the particular phrasing here (at least to me) reads as disparaging
> to people who are not employed to work on LLVM.
This phrasing is clearly too confusing to too many readers at this point.
Its value was marginal anyways, and so I've just removed it.
> As a side note: this whole bullet point is sort of weird. It is titled "Be
> careful in the words that you choose." which makes it sound like it is
> about incidental oversights, but everything after the second sentence seems
> pretty unrelated. E.g. one of the examples is "Posting (or threatening to
> post) other people's personally identifying information ("doxing")." -
> how does that fall under anything involving "be careful"? Similarly for "Unwelcome
> sexual attention." in what way does that involve "the words that you
> choose"; is there a choice of words that makes "Unwelcome sexual
> attention." any more or less acceptable?
It's not about it being more or less acceptable, it is that these
consequences might not be intended. The most common cases here are around
"Discriminatory jokes and language." but several of the other categories
could be unintended as well.
These can usually be solved easily with a quick note to someone saying
"Hey, you may not have intended that joke to be interpreted as ____, but it
is, so you should probably not make it here." No big deal. If the person
doesn't feel comfortable doing that, they can ask the advisory committee to
do it for them *and that will be the extent of what happens*. A quick note
to the person that "Hey, you may not have realized it, but ...".
It is (IMO) still important for it to be here, because once this is
explained, *repeating* it gets worse and worse. And there are cases which
are unambiguous and clearly unacceptable even once -- physical threats for
We could separate the two cases, but it isn't clear that this is a useful
distinction. I think the primary problem is something you point out below...
Was there a typo and "Be kind to others" should start a new top-level
> bullet point? `* **Be kind to others.** ...`
The original wording definitely has it structured as I did in my document.
But I really like this suggestion. There are really two things here: be
careful about the words you choose (because they may have unintended
consequences otherwise) *and* to be kind to others.
So in addition to deleting the sentences that referenced "professionals", I
have merged the two halves into a single highlighted header. I hope that
helps, but please let me know.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev