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

Philip Reames via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri May 6 11:16:36 PDT 2016

On 05/06/2016 11:03 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote:
> On 5/6/16 11:43 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote:
>> On 05/06/2016 09:02 AM, Rafael EspĂ­ndola via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>>> Say what you want about the Linux kernel community, but you can't
>>>>> call
>>>>> it immature. You can call the behaviour of some of its people
>>>>> immature, but the community itself is not by a long shot.
>>>> But there are reasonable people who will not interact with that
>>>> community because they find that community's acceptance of offensive
>>>> behavior unacceptable. I certainly don't want to see that happen here.
>>> That cuts both ways. I have in the past posted in my facebook account
>>> articles from the onion that some people would consider offensive. If
>>> you don't like it, don't read the onion or be friends with me on
>>> facebook.
>>> I have been working on llvm since 2006 and according to the code of
>>> conduct I would now be liable to being banned from working on llvm
>>> because of sharing a satirical news.
>> I think it's fair to say everyone involved in this discussion would find
>> that a ridiculous conclusion.  I personally am not too worried by the
>> current wording, but are there particular changes which would set your
>> mind at ease?  Several folks have raised concerns about the section
>> which reads "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces
>> may affect a person's ability to participate within them."  Is that the
>> one that gives you pause?   Or is there more? Pointing to specific
>> pieces of wording would be really helpful here.
>> FYI, several folks have expressed specific concern about that particular
>> wording.  If we can find wording which rephrases that to address the
>> concern while retaining the intent, that seems like an obvious thing to
>> fix.
> What /is/ the intent of that particular phrase?
I think this has been covered elsewhere, but let me hit a couple of what 
I see as key cases:
1) Person A makes a documented serious physical threat against Person B 
who is a member of the LLVM community.  Person A does not then get to 
come into the community and continue harassing Person B.  We can and 
could say Person A is not welcome; at minimum, all of Person A's 
communications should be moderated.
2) Person A has multiple convictions for sexual assault or other violent 
crime.  Person A does not get to attend LLVM events.
3) Person A (an existing LLVM contributor) takes a technical discussion 
from LLVM with Person B into an alternate channel so as to personally 
attack person B without being subject to CoC. Workaround does not work, 
still a violation of CoC.
4) Person A uses CoC to attack Person B based on Person B's stated 
political views in an outside venue.  Person B has always followed CoC 
in LLVM interactions and has keep personal politics separate. Person A 
(who may not even be a member of the community) could be found in 
violation of the CoC and banned from our spaces.

Just to be clear, my (3,4) are of a substantially different form and 
severity than (1,2).   And, as always, I speak only for myself.

> Jon
>>> Again, I don't doubt the good intentions of the people working on
>>> this, but as written this is one of the most terrifying documents I
>>> have seen.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rafael
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list