<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Philip Reames <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:listmail@philipreames.com" target="_blank">listmail@philipreames.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="">
<br>
<br>
<div>On 05/05/2016 04:14 AM, Charles Davis
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In the
interests of individual liberty and individual justice, I feel
I must speak now.</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The last
sentence of the third paragraph bothers me:</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">In
addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may
affect<br>
a person's ability to participate within them.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">This
essentially gives the committee <i>carte blanche</i> to
police our thoughts no matter where we are or what we're
doing. I don't like the idea of having my thoughts policed.
There are people out there who <i>will</i> abuse this for
their own ends! I can't let those people do that.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
I disagree strongly with your interpretation of this clause. I also
find your wording inflammatory and utterly unhelpful to the
discussion at hand. <br></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. When I said, "There are people out there who <i>will</i> abuse this for their own ends!" I was not talking about any of y'all. I think Chandler and David understood that. You, on the other hand, took this as an attack; this was not my intention at all. My intention is to guard both myself and this community (i.e. all of you!) from attack.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
The intent of this wording is to ensure that harassment done off the
mailing lists can still be considered a violation of the CoC. For
instance, send of private harassing email, harassing tweets from a
non-work account, etc...<br></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I get that. I just don't think it's our business to regulate people's activities on a forum that we do not control--especially if the activity has nothing to do with LLVM, other than the two or more participants happening to be LLVM contributors or developers. If someone is harassing you on Twitter, you report it to Twitter. And if someone harasses you by email, then feel free to be as rude as you please in your replies to them. If someone threatens you with death or rape, the right thing to do is to a) report this to the appropriate law enforcement agency, b) get a gun and learn how to use it, so you shoot that murderer or rapist dead in the event you do get attacked, and c) take martial arts or other self-defense classes. <i style="font-weight:bold">Death threats are no joke</i>--no matter which side is making them. My point is, I think people are more than capable of managing their safety and of thinking for themselves. (It's just that they don't want to...) Anyway, we don't need to coddle people because they can't handle an opposing viewpoint to their own; we are adults here.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
Do you have *specific and targeted* wording changes that you feel
would resolve your concerns while still meeting the stated purpose?</div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">No. My concern is that, if I express an opinion that somebody doesn't like because her politics say she shouldn't like it, and she decides it is, say, hateful to young men and women carrying buckets of water on their shoulders, the power of the committee could be abused to get me banned from this project, just for expressing my opinion. It doesn't even require the committee to be in on some sort of conspiracy; it just requires that the accuser be more convincing than I (which isn't very hard in my case). Nor does my opinion have to actually <i>be </i>hateful to the water-carriers; it just has to be presented as such. (Obviously, this is a contrived example; but it's based on a real-life incident...)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I think that whole sentence should be deleted. But I know now that's never going to happen, because at least three of you (and probably more, too) agree that it's necessary. That puts me in the minority, ironically.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I'm afraid if
this sentence goes in, I go out--and fork the LLVM family.
Yes, I feel <i><b>that</b></i> strongly about freedom of
thought.</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In the sample
list of unacceptable behaviors, I'd consider adding the
following:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Demanding
special treatment for being a particular race, sex,
sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. <b>Nobody</b> gets
this privilege.</font></li>
<li><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Kafkatrapping
(e.g. denying X proves you are part of problem X)</font></li>
<li><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">False
accusations</font></li>
<li><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Dog-piling
(inviting a bunch of people, many outside the
community, to join the conversation and attack the
target)</font></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">I view all of these as
being already covered by the current proposal under the "</font>Be
respectful" and "Be careful in the words that you choose and be kind
to others" sections. <br></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Then why list any unacceptable behaviors at all? They should all be covered by "Be respectful" and "Be careful in the words that you choose and be kind to others" sections. I just wanted to call attention to a few pathological behaviors that I find problematic.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I'd also
consider, in the "Personal Attacks" item, that the emphasis
on racist and sexist terms be removed. Yes, they're bad. The
individual is not the mass, after all. Perhaps in addition
to the "Personal Attacks" item we should also have an item
for treating people as parts of groups instead of as
individuals. There's no need to deny their lived experience
by jamming them under some worthless label.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
Strongly disagreed. History has shown that sexist and racists
actions are unfortunately common and that explicitly calling out
said behavior as unacceptable does change peoples actual behavior.
</div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">(Oh boy. <i>This</i> one's gonna get me hated for sure, simply because I define "racism" and "sexism" differently.)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><i>Were</i> unfortunately common. Now <i>real</i> racism and sexism are mostly gone, confined to a few extremist (far-right <i>and</i> far-left) nut jobs. (The stuff that far-left nut jobs like to call "racism" and "sexism" only cheapens their definitions IMO. We can't deny ourselves the truth, just because we don't like it. Unfortunately, they continue to dominate the debate.) And don't just tell me "they've done studies" (you haven't yet, but David Chisnall just did); surely you've heard of the replication crisis in science--especially social science? If a paper has not yet been independently replicated, or I haven't read it yet to verify it, I don't place any stock in it. <i>Show</i> me the studies. I want to read them for myself, draw my own conclusions, and see how they compare to the study authors' and to my observations. (By the way, this should be in no way taken as an endorsement of a white male supremacy position. I just don't like bullies--I don't care who they are or where they're from.)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><br><span class="">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">Finally, I fear that the reporting
process will be abused by less savory people to destroy their
enemies. For this reason, I suggest that there also be
consequences for the <i>accuser</i> if:
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">
<ul>
<li>The accused is punished, and</li>
<li>The accused is later found to have been innocent.</li>
</ul>
In this case, the accuser would also suffer the punishment.
(Of course, this can be abused, too. We'll have to strike
the right balance between the rights of the accuser and the
rights of the accused. This is hard to get right.)<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
I believe this already covered by the reporting policy. In
particular, you'll note that there is no assumption in the document
about who actually violated the CoC. It absolutely could be the
person who initiated the report. Someone trying to abuse the system
in this was would absolutely be violating the CoC as stated. <br></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">OK, this makes me feel a little better. But it would be nice to have it explicitly stated that the accused will not necessarily be punished.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Just my two
cents. I actually don't expect you to act on any of these.
In fact, I expect you all to write me off from this point
forward, just for that last proposal. ;) But if you act on
only one, please make it the first one. I'm willing to
compromise on the others, but no controls on my speech
outside of LLVM's spaces is non-negotiable.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
If you are not willing to avoid personal attacks and keep your
behavior professional, I, personally, will not be sorry to see you
leave.</div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">This is a personal attack. Not only have I never said I wasn't willing to avoid personal attacks and be professional, it's simply untrue. It also implies (whether or not you meant it to) that I am a terrible person for even bringing up this concern and refusing to budge on it (which I do not appreciate at all).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Turns out I was wrong anyway. It's my <i>first</i> suggestion that produced the most controversy.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> A highly relevant quote: "Your right to swing your arms ends
just where the other man’s nose begins."</div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I believe that only applies if that other man is not himself swinging his arms at my own nose.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div></div></div></div>