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

[Philip Reames via llvm-dev]

On 05/05/2016 09:01 PM, C Bergström wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Under your regime - would I be forbidden from calling someone else out
>>> for generally being a bully or troll.. Specifically if I went through
>>> and found say 6 cases where X caused friction in the community and in
>>> general their behavior was more noise than actually productive.
>> Your point is directly contradicted by the current CoC proposal.
>>
>> Calling someone out on inappropriate behavior is absolutely appropriate.
>> However, doing so without making it into a personal attack is important as
>> well.
>>
>> "Hey, what you just said is not okay.  I'm sure you didn't mean to be
>> personal insulting, but that came across as..." - OK
>> "You ***, how dare you say ___" -- NOT OK
>>
>> As an example taken from your email, your use of the work "regime" comes
>> across as potentially loaded with negative meaning.  I'd suggest that using
>> a word like "proposal" would have been more neutral connotation wise and
>> still made your point.  Your word choice could be read to imply that you
>> view Chandler as a authoritarian dictator which he clearly is not.  :)
> Aha! Great nit and the opportunist in me can't resist... BUT I'm not
> going to change my choice of wording, or apologize and if it offends
> you, tough cookies. Now what?
>
> Under the old system - x()
> New Chandlers CoC - y()
> My proposed CoC - z()
My take would be "no action".  If I was seriously offended (I'm not), I 
certainly could ask for the advisory committee to review the incident.  
My expectation is that any reasonable group of people we picked for that 
group would look at the phrasing involved, ask why it bothered me, and 
then possibly send you a note of the form "hey, might make sense to 
watch your wording a bit.  This incident isn't serious, but a) you're 
potentially walking on thin ice with a couple of folks now, and b) 
repeat issues make even minor things more serious."  (But better 
worded.)  The advisory group would also send me a note of the form: 
"Thanks for raising the concern, but we don't see there being any need 
for action here.  If you see a repeat serious of behavior which is 
problematic, please let us know, but generally a single debatebly poor 
choice of wording is not considered a CoC violation."

Now, if your response to my comment had been worded as a personal attack 
(it wasn't), *that* would have been a more serious issue under the CoC 
as proposed.  Generally, respectful disagreement is not a problem.  
Personal attacks on the other hand are.


>
> Under my proposal I hope to word this process below
> -------------
> If you felt strongly that I had offended you, you should email the
> moderators or whatever their title is, explain the situation and get
> help to resolve the conflict. While the law of the land is stated
> vaguely as "common sense", is there anyone around here where that is
> too ambiguous or doesn't actually capture what we have today?
I think this is exactly what I spelled out above right?
>
> I have read Chandler's CoC and the fact that I have questions about
> how it applies to different things means either my ability to read and
> comprehend is in question or at the least the wording should be
> "fixed".
Agreed.  If there are problems with wording, please help us find them 
and fix them.  This is definitely a case of "patches welcome". :)  Being 
specific is really helpful as well.
>>> I'm still lost at what's really driving this.. *something* must have
>>> happened that prompted all this..
>> To my knowledge, there have been no specific recent incidents within the
>> LLVM community to trigger this discussion.  There have certainly been ones
>> in other communities in recent years.  A news search should find several.
>>
>> Philip
> Philip - Thanks for your great reply and I hope you are ok with me
> trying to turn it into an example.
Given I deliberately wrote it to act as an example, I'm more than okay 
with that.  :)

Philip