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

[Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Jim Rowan <jmr at codeaurora.org> wrote:

> I don’t know what you meant to imply by “residual clause” —
>

Sorry, it's a reference to what is usually the last clause in some set of
proscribed or allowed behavior in a law, because they are usually vague.
IE

You will get in trouble if you do
A. something specific
B. something specific
C. something specific
D. or if you do something not exactly A-C but equally as bad.


if you meant “it’s not particularly important”, then I suggest it is left
> out entirely.
>

No, it's important, they are just deliberately vague.


> Apparently at least a few of us have interpreted it to say “the committee
> reserves the right to kick you out for any behaviour that violates our
> standards which you exhibit anywhere, even if it is completely unrelated to
> the llvm community”.
>

That honestly seems like a pretty uncharitable interpretation.
If that actually happens, great, we can fix it.

There are good reasons facial challenges (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge) are heavily disfavored.


> Personally, I’m just going to ignore it, and thus don’t really care
> whether it stays or goes — but I do find it overreaching and intrusive, and
> completely inappropriate in such a code of conduct.
>

I'm going to pretty strongly disagree, so i'll leave it at that.

>
>
> On Jun 30, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> That's just a residual clause.
> It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities here (IE if
> you stalk and murder someone in the llvm community, you are going to get
> kicked out of the community, regardless of if you did it in a controlled
> space)
> I mean, i'm subject to legal ethics rules that are very similar, and those
> could get me kicked out of an entire profession :)
>
> 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."
>
> But it's not, in practice, any different.
>
> Basically, if you are looking for complete and total bright line
> proscribed standards, they pretty much don't exist anywhere except in
> criminal statutes :)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 2:45 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I expect Rafael's concern is because the code also says:
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare
>> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them.
>>
>>
>>
>> So it can apply outside spaces explicitly sponsored by LLVM, in undefined
>> circumstances.
>>
>> --paulr
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel
>> Berlin via cfe-dev
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 30, 2016 1:37 PM
>> *To:* Rafael Espíndola
>> *Cc:* llvm-dev; cfe-dev; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org); LLDB
>> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for
>> an LLVM Code of Conduct
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> I am strongly opposed to it as it stands.
>>
>> Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of
>> conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in
>> channels not related to llvm at all.
>>
>> errr, it says:
>>
>> "This code of conduct applies to all spaces managed by the LLVM project
>> or The
>>
>> LLVM Foundation. This includes IRC channels, mailing lists, bug trackers,
>> LLVM
>>
>> vents such as the developer meetings and socials, and any other forums
>> created
>>
>> by the project that the community uses for communication. "
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How does this cover channels not related to llvm?
>>
>>
>>
>> With this in place I will not consider myself a member of the llvm
>> community anymore and would be terrified to interact with another llvm
>> developer in a social setting.
>>
>>
>>
>> That would be sad, but i guess i'm not sure what is causing that. Is it
>> that there is discretion in there that you are afraid may apply to you if
>> taken to some extreme?
>>
>>
>>
>> Rafael
>>
>> On 30 June 2016 at 14:55, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev
>>
>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > Hello folks,
>> >
>> > As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong) series of
>> > discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project
>> as a
>> > whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the
>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
>> > code review.
>> >
>> > The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the end
>> > there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now. It
>> > isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around
>> forming
>> > the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording is
>> at a
>> > good point of compromise in a challenging area.
>> >
>> > Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the draft.
>> I’m
>> > hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and I’m
>> > hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee and
>> > resolving any issues around reporting so we can make this an official
>> part
>> > of the community.
>> >
>> > I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a new
>> > discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on llvm-dev
>> if
>> > folks want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh ones, but
>> I
>> > would encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has already
>> > taken place to avoid revisiting areas that have already been heavily
>> > discussed.
>> >
>> > Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on the
>> > mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this topic.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > -Chandler
>> >
>> > [1]: Prior announcements:
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html
>> >
>> > [2]: Existing threads:
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html
>> >
>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html
>> >
>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cfe-dev mailing list
>> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
> Jim Rowan
> jmr at codeaurora.org
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted
> by the Linux Foundation
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160630/6dca5652/attachment.html>