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

[Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev]

> On May 5, 2016, at 5:55 PM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Am 06.05.2016 um 01:26 schrieb Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev:
>> 
>> There are
>> many many people who aren’t even commenting at all because they fear
>> being attacked in this thread.
> 
> Now you're contradicting LLVM's own description that it's a friendly community.
> 
> Also:
> How many is "many, many", actually? How many of these are really in fear, how many are just trying to impose their mindset without actually planning to contribute in earnest, how many are so fearful that they should really seek professional help?

And this is illustrating my point. I don’t really appreciate the joke about seeking professional help. Given how many hundreds of community members we have, and there are maybe 30 responding on this thread? I have spoken to many more at LLVM Dev Meetings who are in favor of a Code of Conduct and I suspect many are fearful of responding here. 

> 
> > 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.
> 
> Well, I can imagine that those who want to push in that direction don't want the opposition.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Harassment is indeed universal.
> The ideas about how to best deal that with are not.
> 

I’m pretty positive that harassment of any kind should not be tolerated or allowed. I’m not sure how there can be different ideas on how to deal with it. 

-Tanya

> > 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.
> 
> The essence of that argument is that since you don't feel concerns, nobody else should.
> I do not think I'll follow that.
> 
> > Is it
>> wordy and long? Maybe a little.
> 
> Actually it seems to be improving, but from my perspective, it's still far too overspecific and too easily abused.
> Note that my concerns are different from Renatos: Renato fears a power grab by the enforcement committee, I fear that regardless of how the committee is elected the whole thing is open to degeneration.
> 
> > But, I think it represents the
>> people of this community and the respect we have for each other.
> 
> In that case, we wouldn't need a code of conduct at all.
> 
> There's an inconsistency here.
> This "the respect we have for each other" bit is in line with the argument that the CoC's purpose is to keep things the way they are. Above, you said that people have fear of speaking up, which is a pretty strong contradiction.
> It's one of those things that make alarms go off.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> *shrug* I have had experience with that kind of approach. With codes of conduct, set up with the best of intentions, and in the end, people just chose to ignore them.

> 
>> 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 self-description is as conclusive as any code of conduct.
> It's not the text that counts, whether it's enforceable or not; what counts is what's actually happening, and no text will change much of that.
> 
> BTW the community shouldn't describe itself.
> 
> Aww dammit. I'm writing far too much on that topic. Again.
> Ah well.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev