[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 15:31:08 PDT 2016

> On May 6, 2016, at 3:13 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 6 May 2016 at 22:57, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org> wrote:
>> 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.
> The major weapon about enforcers is *not* wanting to argue.
> Harassment is a very complicated issue that involves not only actions
> but points of view.
> For instance, you thought Joachim was joking, I didn't. If he was
> joking, that would have been very bad taste. If he was not, that would
> have been a perfectly valid and non aggressive way to understanding
> the range of your statement.
> Depending on your *point of view*, from that point forwards, things
> would roll down in completely opposite paths.
> If you don't discuss what is and what isn't harassment, or if you're
> not prepared to understand that communications will breakdown very
> easily, then you're taking an extremist point of view in regards to
> the code and giving every one that has had fears so far, the right to
> do so. I'm not saying *you* are, but that is the consequence if you
> (or anyone else) would have been.
> Now, assuming that he was joking, that would have been bad, but how
> bad? It would depend on how many times it happened in the past (serial
> offender, see the autism page I shared earlier), or if the affected
> person asked him to stop and he didn't, or if he did this on the list
> or out of it, etc. Those are all parts of the spectrum of harassment,
> and they have to be dealt with in *very* different ways.
> If we advocate on our CoC that we do not take a spectrum approach to
> harassment, and that some unnamed people are the ones that choose what
> is harassment and what is not, than you're telling all prospective
> members that we essentially don't care about their opinions and their
> behaviours will be monitored and potentially curbed at our own
> discretion.
> One may think it's ok to do that to potential offenders, but you
> cannot tell who is an offender and who is not just by looking at which
> T-Shirt they're wearing. Doing so is the most classic form of
> prejudice.
> I personally do not see this as the role of the CoC, and from my
> conversations with Chandler and others on this list and the review,
> this is not what they are thinking either. I'd rather deal with
> offenders *after* they have offended than risking have my prejudice
> affect the quality of the tools I build. It would also show how
> efficient our process is against harassment.


I am not going to argue with you anymore. I have stated my opinion that I think the Code of Conduct needs to be more explicit than “be nice”. I have said  that I like the list of what is harassment in the draft. I gave the above link as the backing for why I feel that way. I have not said that no discussion needs to happen about what is harassment.  Please stop twisting my words. 


> cheers,
> --renato

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/3534a4c2/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list