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

[Sean Silva via llvm-dev]

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On May 5, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 5 May 2016 at 23:06, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org> wrote:
>> >> The point is that you wouldn’t know that from looking at the
>> alternative code of conduct. I would need to spend months pouring through
>> mailing lists posts and watching the community to feel its a good and safe
>> place.
>> >
>> > Right, this is a very good point for having something written down.
>> >
>> >
>> >> One of the many reasons a code of conduct is useful is to show
>> outsiders what our community is like, what we think is acceptable and what
>> is not. They read that, then they know how they are expected to behave and
>> how they will be treated. They are much more likely to be a part of that
>> community.
>> >
>> > My argument is that this is much more important in the US than in most
>> > other places (see my response to Hal). But the US is a big enough
>> > chunk that we cannot ignore.
>> >
>> > However, we also can't ignore that the US is not the *only* source,
>> > and for a few of us, having a code that is overly powerful while being
>> > overly vague is a reason to *leave* the project. Some even mentioned
>> > forking it.
>> >
>> > Then my question is: how many people are we prepared to lose, and how
>> > many are we expecting to gain? More importantly, can we gain without
>> > losing?
>> >
>> > From the few passionate responses against the code in its current
>> > form, it would be naive to say we could. So, can we change the code in
>> > order to not lose those types of people?
>> >
>> > Mind you, those that responded are but a few who *can* respond. The
>> > kind of impasse this CoC creates, affects people that rarely
>> > communicate, especially on controversial subjects such as this. And
>> > those people don't blog about their problems, they just go be
>> > productive elsewhere. You won't know they're gone until it's too late.
>>
>> Quite frankly, I find some of the responses to be very concerning and
>> disturbing. Comments about how its ok to behave in certain ways that many
>> find offensive, sexist, or racist, is extremely disappointing and if those
>> people want to leave the community then I am fine with it.
>>
>> If the Code of Conduct was really not representing what is already
>> happening in our community then it needs to be reworded. There are many
>> many people who aren’t even commenting at all because they fear being
>> attacked in this thread. There are many who aren’t responding because they
>> agree we need one and just want this thing done and don’t want to talk
>> about it anymore.
>>
>> I don’t think we will agree about the need for a code of conduct. I just
>> don’t see it happening. Its not a US versus everywhere else thing. All of
>> the issues the code of conduct touches on are universal across everywhere.
>> I feel strongly that we need a code of conduct for the strength, health,
>> and future of our community and I don’t see anything in Chandler’s draft
>> that makes me feel concerned. Is it wordy and long? Maybe a little.  But, I
>> think it represents the people of this community and the respect we have
>> for each other. If we find out we were wrong, then we can make changes to
>> it as we go. Nothing is ever set in stone and you learn through experience.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> But there are other goals of a CoC that can not be ignored and are not
>> met by the alternative CoC.
>> >
>> > Such as?
>>
>> I was referring to the goal of showing outsiders what our community is
>> like and showing it is an indeed a safe and inviting place for everyone.
>>
>
> A lot of the discussion in this and other threads revolves around the
> "enforcement" part of the CoC. If the purpose is only to show to others
> what we're like, then "enforcement" isn't needed per se, just explanation.
>
> But IIRC in another thread it was brought up that the "enforcement" part
> is actually needed for "showing it is an indeed a safe and inviting place
> for everyone".
>
> So there are actually two separate things:
> - we want to codify our existing practices and expectations (this is a
> "descriptive" component)
> - we want to codify new enforcement practices (this is a "prescriptive"
> component)
>
> I have to admit that adding codified enforcement practices is a major
> step. If this is necessary for the CoC to serve its purpose of "showing it
> is an indeed a safe and inviting place for everyone" then I think we can
> add reasonable enforcement practices (+1 from me). But any change to
> existing community practices like this is going to involve discussion, and
> so far there hasn't been a focused discussion about this. Can we have one?
>
>
> Personally, I think that the "enforcement" proposed CoC in its current
> form is a pretty darn good (even split out into a separate "Reporting
> Guide" document). There's some details of choosing the "Code of Conduct
> Advisory Committee" left to do, but overall it seems reasonable.
>

And looking at the "descriptive" part of the proposed CoC it seems fine
too. Reading it as if it were purely descriptive, there is nothing in there
that I think is false*. If someone is being harassed, we would be like
"that's not okay", etc.

-- Sean Silva


>
>
> -- Sean Silva
>
>
>>
>> -Tanya
>>
>> >
>> > --renato
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160505/8518b045/attachment.html>