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

[Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:47 PM Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On 6 May 2016 at 20:39, Lang Hames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Indeed, a very good point. The biggest argument is that the code is
> not trying to change our culture and that definitely goes against it.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I've added my comment on the review itself, but he're s a copy:
>
> I personally feel this is not so bad for two things:
>
> 1. It says "may affect", not "will affect". Not a very strong point
> per se, but strong enough given point two.
> 2. Being unfair in the evaluation and punishment of cases like that
> would go directly against this very code. Blocking someone because
> they were seen with a silly T-shirt in their Facebook pictures will be
> a clear case of bullying, and thus could be reported by this very
> code.
>
> If the committee is really serious about bullying, then the committee
> will put itself on the list of potential offenders, and they should be
> judged in the same manner.
>
> If they don't, than we have much bigger problems than the code itself...
>

FWIW, this pretty much exactly how it breaks down for me. Can this sentence
be abused? Yes. But that abuse is equally a problem, and I think the
community is mature enough to handle and respond to it, especially within
the framework provided.

That said, I wonder what folks think about strengthening the
"de-intensifying" language? As a small change that might help:

"In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare
cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them."

Essentially trying to drive home that this would be a very unusual and
specific event.

Other wording idea, no idea if this really works or captures what people
want...

"In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect
a person's
ability to participate within them due to specific risks posed to members
of the LLVM community."


Unfortunately, most of the ideas I come up with that handle the (pretty
clear I hope) cases that *need* to be handled are too narrow: they *only*
handle the case I have in mind. It ends up being a giant pile of text full
of "loop holes" etc that I think would just make matters worse.

-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/dde25490/attachment.html>