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

[Lang Hames via llvm-dev]

>
> Several folks have raised concerns about the section which reads "In
> addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a
> person's ability to participate within them."  Is that the one that gives
> you pause?
>

For what it's worth it's definitely the line that caused me the most
concern. In the least charitable reading it could be seen as applying "LLVM
community standards" to contributors' private lives, which would be a big
departure from our current culture. I understand that that's not how it's
intended though, and I trust the committee to apply a sensible (and lower)
standard to private behavior than they do to behavior in LLVM community
spaces. In Rafael's example, as you said, it would be ridiculous to
consider disciplining someone for sharing an Onion article on social media,
even if sharing that same article on the dev-list would have been
inappropriate.

- Lang.

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 05/06/2016 09:02 AM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev wrote:
>
>> Say what you want about the Linux kernel community, but you can't
>>>> call
>>>> it immature. You can call the behaviour of some of its people
>>>> immature, but the community itself is not by a long shot.
>>>>
>>> But there are reasonable people who will not interact with that
>>> community because they find that community's acceptance of offensive
>>> behavior unacceptable. I certainly don't want to see that happen here.
>>>
>> That cuts both ways. I have in the past posted in my facebook account
>> articles from the onion that some people would consider offensive. If
>> you don't like it, don't read the onion or be friends with me on
>> facebook.
>>
>> I have been working on llvm since 2006 and according to the code of
>> conduct I would now be liable to being banned from working on llvm
>> because of sharing a satirical news.
>>
> I think it's fair to say everyone involved in this discussion would find
> that a ridiculous conclusion.  I personally am not too worried by the
> current wording, but are there particular changes which would set your mind
> at ease?  Several folks have raised concerns about the section which reads
> "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a
> person's ability to participate within them."  Is that the one that gives
> you pause?   Or is there more? Pointing to specific pieces of wording would
> be really helpful here.
>
> FYI, several folks have expressed specific concern about that particular
> wording.  If we can find wording which rephrases that to address the
> concern while retaining the intent, that seems like an obvious thing to fix.
>
>>
>> Again, I don't doubt the good intentions of the people working on
>> this, but as written this is one of the most terrifying documents I
>> have seen.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rafael
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/c502b4f9/attachment.html>