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

Jon Roelofs via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri May 6 13:38:26 PDT 2016

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>

> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:04 PM Jon Roelofs via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> On Friday, May 6, 2016, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On 6 May 2016 at 19:34, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > This isn't just about what we can do today, but about explaining it to
>>> > people who haven't seen us do it/don't know what the community norms
>>> are. So
>>> > that when evaluating which communities they might want to be involved
>>> in,
>>> > they have some confidence that this one might be compatible with their
>>> > comfort/needs/etc.
>>> The CoC can do that on its own. We were talking specifically about the
>>> "external media" clause.
>> I don't know if this has already been answered in the current thread or
>> the previous discussion of an llvm CoC, but: What is the intended
>> resolution of an issue like: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 where,
>> IIUC, someone from the community makes politically incorrect/unpopular statements
>> outside of the community on so-called "external media" (without attacking
>> or harassing anyone in particular), but keeps his/her direct interactions
>> with the community on topic, engineering related, and non-discriminatory?
> I can't speak for how a future committee would look at this, but I can
> certainly tell you what I would personally look for and I would have
> serious concerns if the response differed significantly:
> Until there is some particular reason to believe that the communication
> elsewhere is having a serious negative effect on members of the community
> and their ability to effectively participate in the community, its none of
> our business. But if there are serious negative effects, then trying to
> find some way to deal with those seems reasonable. I suspect what that
> looks like will depend almost entirely on the circumstances that arise.
> As a hypothetical, if someone widely promotes positions that are
> sufficiently hostile and unwelcoming to contributors that their mere
> presence has a stifling effect and makes those contributors feel incapable
> of interacting with the community, no matter how separate the external
> behavior is kept or how much we do to try to keep things separate, I would
> personally hope the committee would step in because I think that would have
> a really negative effect on members of the community.
> But it is also nearly impossible to predict what kinds of behavior would
> or wouldn't have negative effects (especially these kinds of effects) in
> the abstract or based on what happens in a different community with
> different people. So I don't really know where the issue you cite falls. I
> can imagine context where it could go either way, and I would hope that the
> committee pays a *lot* of attention to that kind of context.
> Anyways, my perspective on how this would work.
> -Chandler

Thanks, that's very helpful.

If your points here could be clarified in the document itself, that would
address my main concern with it: that the CoC might be used to censor those
that the community disagrees with, in cases where the speech itself is as
you put it: "none of our business".

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/a07c3272/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list