[llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct

Sean Silva via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu May 5 20:14:21 PDT 2016

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > On May 5, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 5 May 2016 at 23:06, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org> wrote:
>> >> The point is that you wouldn’t know that from looking at the
>> alternative code of conduct. I would need to spend months pouring through
>> mailing lists posts and watching the community to feel its a good and safe
>> place.
>> >
>> > Right, this is a very good point for having something written down.
>> >
>> >
>> >> One of the many reasons a code of conduct is useful is to show
>> outsiders what our community is like, what we think is acceptable and what
>> is not. They read that, then they know how they are expected to behave and
>> how they will be treated. They are much more likely to be a part of that
>> community.
>> >
>> > My argument is that this is much more important in the US than in most
>> > other places (see my response to Hal). But the US is a big enough
>> > chunk that we cannot ignore.
>> >
>> > However, we also can't ignore that the US is not the *only* source,
>> > and for a few of us, having a code that is overly powerful while being
>> > overly vague is a reason to *leave* the project. Some even mentioned
>> > forking it.
>> >
>> > Then my question is: how many people are we prepared to lose, and how
>> > many are we expecting to gain? More importantly, can we gain without
>> > losing?
>> >
>> > From the few passionate responses against the code in its current
>> > form, it would be naive to say we could. So, can we change the code in
>> > order to not lose those types of people?
>> >
>> > Mind you, those that responded are but a few who *can* respond. The
>> > kind of impasse this CoC creates, affects people that rarely
>> > communicate, especially on controversial subjects such as this. And
>> > those people don't blog about their problems, they just go be
>> > productive elsewhere. You won't know they're gone until it's too late.
>> Quite frankly, I find some of the responses to be very concerning and
>> disturbing. Comments about how its ok to behave in certain ways that many
>> find offensive, sexist, or racist, is extremely disappointing and if those
>> people want to leave the community then I am fine with it.
>> If the Code of Conduct was really not representing what is already
>> happening in our community then it needs to be reworded. There are many
>> many people who aren’t even commenting at all because they fear being
>> attacked in this thread. There are many who aren’t responding because they
>> agree we need one and just want this thing done and don’t want to talk
>> about it anymore.
>> I don’t think we will agree about the need for a code of conduct. I just
>> don’t see it happening. Its not a US versus everywhere else thing. All of
>> the issues the code of conduct touches on are universal across everywhere.
>> I feel strongly that we need a code of conduct for the strength, health,
>> and future of our community and I don’t see anything in Chandler’s draft
>> that makes me feel concerned. Is it wordy and long? Maybe a little.  But, I
>> think it represents the people of this community and the respect we have
>> for each other. If we find out we were wrong, then we can make changes to
>> it as we go. Nothing is ever set in stone and you learn through experience.
>> >
>> >
>> >> But there are other goals of a CoC that can not be ignored and are not
>> met by the alternative CoC.
>> >
>> > Such as?
>> I was referring to the goal of showing outsiders what our community is
>> like and showing it is an indeed a safe and inviting place for everyone.
> A lot of the discussion in this and other threads revolves around the
> "enforcement" part of the CoC. If the purpose is only to show to others
> what we're like, then "enforcement" isn't needed per se, just explanation.
> But IIRC in another thread it was brought up that the "enforcement" part
> is actually needed for "showing it is an indeed a safe and inviting place
> for everyone".
> So there are actually two separate things:
> - we want to codify our existing practices and expectations (this is a
> "descriptive" component)
> - we want to codify new enforcement practices (this is a "prescriptive"
> component)
> I have to admit that adding codified enforcement practices is a major
> step. If this is necessary for the CoC to serve its purpose of "showing it
> is an indeed a safe and inviting place for everyone" then I think we can
> add reasonable enforcement practices (+1 from me). But any change to
> existing community practices like this is going to involve discussion, and
> so far there hasn't been a focused discussion about this. Can we have one?
> Personally, I think that the "enforcement" proposed CoC in its current
> form is a pretty darn good (even split out into a separate "Reporting
> Guide" document). There's some details of choosing the "Code of Conduct
> Advisory Committee" left to do, but overall it seems reasonable.

And looking at the "descriptive" part of the proposed CoC it seems fine
too. Reading it as if it were purely descriptive, there is nothing in there
that I think is false*. If someone is being harassed, we would be like
"that's not okay", etc.

-- Sean Silva

> -- Sean Silva
>> -Tanya
>> >
>> > --renato
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160505/8518b045/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list