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

[Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:38 PM Jon Roelofs <jroelofs at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:04 PM Jon Roelofs via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, May 6, 2016, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6 May 2016 at 19:34, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > This isn't just about what we can do today, but about explaining it to
>>>> > people who haven't seen us do it/don't know what the community norms
>>>> are. So
>>>> > that when evaluating which communities they might want to be involved
>>>> in,
>>>> > they have some confidence that this one might be compatible with their
>>>> > comfort/needs/etc.
>>>>
>>>> The CoC can do that on its own. We were talking specifically about the
>>>> "external media" clause.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know if this has already been answered in the current thread or
>>> the previous discussion of an llvm CoC, but: What is the intended
>>> resolution of an issue like: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 where,
>>> IIUC, someone from the community makes politically incorrect/unpopular statements
>>> outside of the community on so-called "external media" (without attacking
>>> or harassing anyone in particular), but keeps his/her direct interactions
>>> with the community on topic, engineering related, and non-discriminatory?
>>>
>>
>> I can't speak for how a future committee would look at this, but I can
>> certainly tell you what I would personally look for and I would have
>> serious concerns if the response differed significantly:
>>
>> Until there is some particular reason to believe that the communication
>> elsewhere is having a serious negative effect on members of the community
>> and their ability to effectively participate in the community, its none of
>> our business. But if there are serious negative effects, then trying to
>> find some way to deal with those seems reasonable. I suspect what that
>> looks like will depend almost entirely on the circumstances that arise.
>>
>> As a hypothetical, if someone widely promotes positions that are
>> sufficiently hostile and unwelcoming to contributors that their mere
>> presence has a stifling effect and makes those contributors feel incapable
>> of interacting with the community, no matter how separate the external
>> behavior is kept or how much we do to try to keep things separate, I would
>> personally hope the committee would step in because I think that would have
>> a really negative effect on members of the community.
>>
>> But it is also nearly impossible to predict what kinds of behavior would
>> or wouldn't have negative effects (especially these kinds of effects) in
>> the abstract or based on what happens in a different community with
>> different people. So I don't really know where the issue you cite falls. I
>> can imagine context where it could go either way, and I would hope that the
>> committee pays a *lot* of attention to that kind of context.
>>
>> Anyways, my perspective on how this would work.
>> -Chandler
>>
>
> Thanks, that's very helpful.
>
> If your points here could be clarified in the document itself, that would
> address my main concern with it: that the CoC might be used to censor those
> that the community disagrees with, in cases where the speech itself is as
> you put it: "none of our business".
>

I'm not sure what clarifications would help here as this is already how I
interpret the words there. (Beyond the suggestion earlier in the thread to
qualify with "rarely" one sentence which I'm going to apply now...)

Are there concrete changes that would help clarify this in your mind?

-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160506/b8edce17/attachment.html>