[llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct

[Philip Reames via llvm-dev]

On 05/05/2016 04:14 AM, Charles Davis wrote:
> In the interests of individual liberty and individual justice, I feel 
> I must speak now.
>
> The last sentence of the third paragraph bothers me:
>
>     In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect
>     a person's ability to participate within them.
>
> ​This essentially gives the committee /carte blanche/ 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 
> /will/ abuse ​this for their own ends! I can't let those people do that.
I disagree strongly with your interpretation of this clause.  I also 
find your wording inflammatory and utterly unhelpful to the discussion 
at hand.

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...

Do you have *specific and targeted* wording changes that you feel would 
resolve your concerns while still meeting the stated purpose?


>
> I'm afraid if this sentence goes in, I go out--and fork the LLVM 
> family. Yes, I feel /*that*/ strongly about freedom of thought.
>
> In the sample list of unacceptable behaviors, I'd consider adding the 
> following:
>
>   * Demanding special treatment for being a particular race, sex,
>     sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. *Nobody* gets this
>     privilege.
>   * Kafkatrapping (e.g. denying X proves you are part of problem X)
>   * False accusations
>   * Dog-piling (inviting a bunch of people, many outside the
>     community, to join the conversation and attack the target)
>
I view all of these as being already covered by the current proposal 
under the "Be respectful" and "Be careful in the words that you choose 
and be kind to others" sections.
> 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.
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.
> 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 /accuser/ if:
>
>   * The accused is punished, and
>   * The accused is later found to have been innocent.
>
> 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.)
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.
>
> 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.
If you are not willing to avoid personal attacks and keep your behavior 
professional, I, personally, will not be sorry to see you leave.  A 
highly relevant quote: "Your right to swing your arms ends just where 
the other man’s nose begins."

Philip

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160505/c2b1e0ac/attachment.html>