[llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct
Hal Finkel via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu May 5 17:06:43 PDT 2016
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com>
> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org>
> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 6:00:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct
> 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
> >>> consider
> >>> "ok". Even on broadcast tv (in the US) you'll hear some
> >>> profanity.
> >>> (context)
> >>> https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts
> >> Excellent context!
> >>> Some people have pointed out that they don't like the R-rated
> >>> style
> >>> of
> >>> the LKML. Profanity and no holds barred just isn't for some
> >>> people.
> >>> I
> >>> can respect that, but personally I find it more funny and
> >>> raw/honest.
> >> 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
> but utterly banning it seems like an over reaction. Swearing at
> is certainly inappropriate and would clearly violate the proposed
> 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.
I understand your point. You, and essentially everyone else, try not to do it. I did a couple quick searches in my e-mail, and found only a handful of instances over the past many years. At least in writing, this certainly is the community norm. Maybe I need to be a bit more careful here about generalizing to in-person interactions, etc. but frankly, I think this is largely covered by communicating respectfully to and about others.
> As such, I would strongly argue
> such a proposal should not be tried up with the CoC and should be
> discussed separately.
> > 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
> for. At the end of the day, we are not going to be able to enforce
> intersection of every employment law anywhere. In particular, many
> them are directly contradictory. I don't want to see us start
> I think that would be a major mistake.
> > -Hal
> >> 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
> >>> basically
> >>> 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
> >> we're
> >> trying to uphold.
> >> cheers,
> >> --renato
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory
More information about the llvm-dev