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

Renato Golin via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri May 6 11:19:24 PDT 2016

On 6 May 2016 at 19:04, Philip Reames via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> "hey, might make sense to watch your
> wording a bit.  This incident isn't serious, but a) you're potentially
> walking on thin ice with a couple of folks now, and b) repeat issues make
> even minor things more serious."

Given how some people (including me) have trouble with social norms
and wording, isn't it clear that some well intended people will end up
"walking on thin ice" more often than others, and therefore will be
more likely to suffer from "repeat offence" punishments?

If all we have to base our accusations is how wording affects people,
we can't have a community with autistic people. This is the kind of
unintentional social bullying that autistic people suffer every day
and it is not pleasant at all.


If the CoC is programmed to protect people from abuse, then it should
also protect people with bad social skills. The group of people with
poor social skills are very often taken (unintentionally) as offensive
and rude. And now we have an impasse.

If someone with poor social skills is unintentionally rude, and the
offended person fights back, who do we protect? The CoC could be used
either way, but most people agreeing with the CoC are implying that
"good behaviour" is more important than intention, which puts a
not-so-minority group (especially in compilers) at risk. (as the page
above explains it).

If we had an autistic person on the committee, I'd be much more
comfortable with their social purview.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list