[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

[Daniel Berlin via cfe-dev]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
wrote:

> I'm not sure why you're stuck on thinking I want an enumeration of
> offenses.
>
Sorry, it's because  i don't see a way to give you the below without it :)

> What I'm looking for (and AFAICT also Rafael and maybe other people) is a
> clearer statement that "offenses" outside of LLVM-defined spaces need to
> meet a much higher bar to be considered problematic within the LLVM
> community.
>

How would you define that bar without defining the offenses?
IE what do you think would make it less subject to vague discretion than
what is there now other than defining the offenses?


> Someone tripping over my posting on the Militant Flat Earth Society should
> not get a free pass to boot me out of LLVM.
>
The single word "rare" in the current code doesn't feel like enough.
>

I don't actually disagree with your criticism, IMHO, i just don't know of a
way to generate more clarity.

--paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* Daniel Berlin [mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 01, 2016 7:46 AM
> *To:* Robinson, Paul
> *Cc:* Rafael Espíndola; LLDB; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; llvm-dev;
> openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org)
> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an
> LLVM Code of Conduct
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
> wrote:
>
> | It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities
>
> Not looking for that.  Looking to avoid being trolled.  ("Trolled" isn't
> the right word here but I've lost track of what the right one is. Hopefully
> my intent is clear enough.)
>
>
>
> I'm really not sure what you mean here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> | I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside
> these spaces may, in rare
>
> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the
> conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social
> standard."
>
>
>
> If that's what it means, is there a problem with writing it that way?
>
>
>
> What do you believe that explains that the older version did not?
>
> No matter how you write it, it will not precisely define the conduct that
> will or will not get you kicked out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> | But it's not, in practice, any different.
>
> I concede it's not any different to a lawyer, which I know you are; most
> of us are not lawyers.
>
>
> That's not really relevant of course - i meant that it's not any different
> in practice than any other set of social conduct rules one is subject to.
>
>
> I doubt, for example, either the Google or Sony employee handbooks have
> precise bright lines on what conduct is okay and not okay.   Yet they still
> have serious consequences.
>
>
>
> Again, if it's not any different, is there a problem with writing it in a
> way that provides clarity to the non-lawyer population?
>
>
>
> I don't think any way you write it will provide clarity as to precisely
> what conduct will and will not be okay.
>
>
>
> Anyway, since I don't think what you seem to want is possible, and I think
> it's fine as-is.
>
> But I understand if you disagree.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160701/311cecb2/attachment.html>