[llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct
Philip Reames via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu May 5 16:00:20 PDT 2016
On 05/05/2016 07:41 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Renato Golin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> To: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
>> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 7:44:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct
>> On 5 May 2016 at 13:23, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote:
>>> Is the list PG, PG-13, R or at what level do "we" adults all
>>> "ok". Even on broadcast tv (in the US) you'll hear some profanity.
>> Excellent context!
>>> Some people have pointed out that they don't like the R-rated style
>>> the LKML. Profanity and no holds barred just isn't for some people.
>>> can respect that, but personally I find it more funny and
>> I don't care much about the swearing like "s***, I broke the bots
>> again", but I understand not everyone is like that, so I avoid to the
>> best of my abilities.
>> I can easily cope with "this code is a piece of s***", because
>> sometimes it really is. Some people take it personal, though, so it's
>> best if we all always avoid that kind of talk.
>> But there's nothing dubious about: "you are a piece of s*** for
>> writing this code". That is totally unacceptable.
> I'd strongly prefer that we have a "no public profanity" policy here. The fact that this community maintains a professional decorum is essential to being able to treat community interaction as an expected part of LLVM-related work activities.
I'd disagree. I certainly try not to swear publicly on a regular basis,
but utterly banning it seems like an over reaction. Swearing at someone
is certainly inappropriate and would clearly violate the proposed CoC,
but that's due to the personal attack aspect, not the wording.
To me, this sounds like a change in community norms rather than an
endorsement of our existing ones. As such, I would strongly argue that
such a proposal should not be tried up with the CoC and should be
> Otherwise, to name one problem, such expectations might run afoul of laws and regulations governing the workplace environment. Yes, some profanity is benign, but I see no definitive way to draw that line, and frankly, there are no situations where it is required.
I'm concerned by this argument, more than what you're actually arguing
for. At the end of the day, we are not going to be able to enforce the
intersection of every employment law anywhere. In particular, many of
them are directly contradictory. I don't want to see us start trying.
I think that would be a major mistake.
>> Now, encoding this in the CoC is the hard part...
>>> In the world there exists arbitrators/moderators - Why not define a
>>> couple of "adults" who have demonstrated a history of strong and
>>> reasonable character. People who can defuse situations and
>>> be the guy which "we" trust to make good decisions. Elect 3 -
>>> something pops up... we go to them to make a decision or help fix
>>> stuff. It's low volume so shouldn't be a burden.. they would likely
>>> help out anyway..
>> That's another point I had forgotten.
>> I don't think the people in this committee should be nominated, but
>> voted. This is more than just the LLVM Foundation doing stuff on the
>> side, this is out whole community, of which the foundation is only
>> part of.
>> I feel very strongly about that, even if I trust the people that get
>> nominated. Others might not, and that'd be against the very code
>> trying to uphold.
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
More information about the llvm-dev