[llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct
Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri May 6 14:57:22 PDT 2016
> On May 6, 2016, at 2:35 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 6 May 2016 at 22:21, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> How many is "many, many", actually? How many of these are really in fear, how many are just trying to impose their mindset without actually planning to contribute in earnest, how many are so fearful that they should really seek professional help?
>> And this is illustrating my point. I don’t really appreciate the joke about seeking professional help. Given how many hundreds of community members we have, and there are maybe 30 responding on this thread? I have spoken to many more at LLVM Dev Meetings who are in favor of a Code of Conduct and I suspect many are fearful of responding here.
> I don't think this was a joke at all...
>>> Harassment is indeed universal.
>>> The ideas about how to best deal that with are not.
>> I’m pretty positive that harassment of any kind should not be tolerated or allowed.
>> I’m not sure how there can be different ideas on how to deal with it.
> I'm confused...
> Are you implying that everyone will agree on exactly what is and what
> is not harassment? And consequently they'll also agree on exactly how
> to deal with each individual situation?
No. He said there were different ideas of how to deal with harassment. I said that I disagree that it should not be tolerated or allowed.
There was no discussion about what is or is not harassment.
If you want to talk about that point, I can tell you my thoughts. I feel that the code of conduct should have explicit examples of types of harassment (such as the ones that are in there). That removes some ambiguity about certain issues. There are obviously going to be many things that don’t fall into those categories and its up to the community/committee to decide if it is harassment. Someone has to make a decision at some point if a decision is needed. But I like what is in the CoC drafted at the moment and feel it covers most topics.
From the Ada Initiative (https://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/) they write:
The major weapon of harassers is arguing whether something is actually harassing. It is difficult to enforce a CoC if you have to have a month long nasty argument about whether it was violated. It burns out people like you.
It encourages people to report when they are certain they will be taken seriously and not dismissed or argued with.
The list of “don’ts” educates people on what to do, so you avoid problems in the first place.
Finally, it sends a signal to people considering joining your community in a way that “be nice” does not. “Be nice” is a signal to harassers that they can use tone arguments and otherwise play on people’s desires to be nice to get away with stuff.For example, Wikipedia’s “Assume good faith” is regularly abused by people not acting in good faith. Asking people to attempt resolution by discussion is used both as a delaying tactic and a way to abuse people longer.
They also say: A related point is that sometimes it is the argument over whether something is harassment that makes people leave, not the harassment itself.
> I know you understand that there are different situations (you have
> said as much), but this makes me think that you're assuming that
> everyone should agree with your analysis of every case.
> This obviously goes against any attempt to either be inclusive or
> extend our community, and would, in my view, go against the proposed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev