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

Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri May 6 12:56:43 PDT 2016

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:47 PM Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On 6 May 2016 at 20:39, Lang Hames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> wrote:
> > For what it's worth it's definitely the line that caused me the most
> > concern. In the least charitable reading it could be seen as applying
> > community standards" to contributors' private lives, which would be a big
> > departure from our current culture.
> Indeed, a very good point. The biggest argument is that the code is
> not trying to change our culture and that definitely goes against it.
> > I understand that that's not how it's
> > intended though, and I trust the committee to apply a sensible (and
> lower)
> > standard to private behavior than they do to behavior in LLVM community
> > spaces. In Rafael's example, as you said, it would be ridiculous to
> consider
> > disciplining someone for sharing an Onion article on social media, even
> if
> > sharing that same article on the dev-list would have been inappropriate.
> I've added my comment on the review itself, but he're s a copy:
> I personally feel this is not so bad for two things:
> 1. It says "may affect", not "will affect". Not a very strong point
> per se, but strong enough given point two.
> 2. Being unfair in the evaluation and punishment of cases like that
> would go directly against this very code. Blocking someone because
> they were seen with a silly T-shirt in their Facebook pictures will be
> a clear case of bullying, and thus could be reported by this very
> code.
> If the committee is really serious about bullying, then the committee
> will put itself on the list of potential offenders, and they should be
> judged in the same manner.
> If they don't, than we have much bigger problems than the code itself...

FWIW, this pretty much exactly how it breaks down for me. Can this sentence
be abused? Yes. But that abuse is equally a problem, and I think the
community is mature enough to handle and respond to it, especially within
the framework provided.

That said, I wonder what folks think about strengthening the
"de-intensifying" language? As a small change that might help:

"In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare
cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them."

Essentially trying to drive home that this would be a very unusual and
specific event.

Other wording idea, no idea if this really works or captures what people

"In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect
a person's
ability to participate within them due to specific risks posed to members
of the LLVM community."

Unfortunately, most of the ideas I come up with that handle the (pretty
clear I hope) cases that *need* to be handled are too narrow: they *only*
handle the case I have in mind. It ends up being a giant pile of text full
of "loop holes" etc that I think would just make matters worse.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/dde25490/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list