Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] GitHub anyone?
+1 from me On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Tim Northover via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 31 May 2016 at 12:31, Renato Golin via cfe-dev > wrote: > > What do people think? Any issue not covered that we should? > > I'm in favour of the move. Git-svn just about works most of the time, > but I find it makes committing to release branches particularly > painful. It also randomly corrupts its database occasionally, just for > the giggles I assume. > > Tim. > ___ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > I am strongly opposed to it as it stands. > > Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of > conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in > channels not related to llvm at all. > > errr, it says: "This code of conduct applies to all spaces managed by the LLVM project or The LLVM Foundation. This includes IRC channels, mailing lists, bug trackers, LLVM vents such as the developer meetings and socials, and any other forums created by the project that the community uses for communication. " How does this cover channels not related to llvm? > With this in place I will not consider myself a member of the llvm > community anymore and would be terrified to interact with another llvm > developer in a social setting. > > That would be sad, but i guess i'm not sure what is causing that. Is it that there is discretion in there that you are afraid may apply to you if taken to some extreme? > Rafael > > On 30 June 2016 at 14:55, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev > wrote: > > Hello folks, > > > > As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looong) series of > > discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project as > a > > whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741 > > code review. > > > > The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the end > > there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now. It > > isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around > forming > > the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording is > at a > > good point of compromise in a challenging area. > > > > Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the draft. > I’m > > hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and I’m > > hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee and > > resolving any issues around reporting so we can make this an official > part > > of the community. > > > > I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a new > > discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on llvm-dev > if > > folks want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh ones, but I > > would encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has already > > taken place to avoid revisiting areas that have already been heavily > > discussed. > > > > Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on the > > mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this topic. > > > > Thanks, > > -Chandler > > > > [1]: Prior announcements: > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html > > > > [2]: Existing threads: > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html > > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html > > > > ___ > > cfe-dev mailing list > > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > > > ___ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct
That's just a residual clause. It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities here (IE if you stalk and murder someone in the llvm community, you are going to get kicked out of the community, regardless of if you did it in a controlled space) I mean, i'm subject to legal ethics rules that are very similar, and those could get me kicked out of an entire profession :) I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social standard." But it's not, in practice, any different. Basically, if you are looking for complete and total bright line proscribed standards, they pretty much don't exist anywhere except in criminal statutes :) On Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 2:45 PM Robinson, Paul wrote: > I expect Rafael's concern is because the code also says: > > > > In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare > cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them. > > > > So it can apply outside spaces explicitly sponsored by LLVM, in undefined > circumstances. > > --paulr > > > > *From:* cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel > Berlin via cfe-dev > *Sent:* Thursday, June 30, 2016 1:37 PM > *To:* Rafael Espíndola > *Cc:* llvm-dev; cfe-dev; openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org); LLDB > *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an > LLVM Code of Conduct > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola > wrote: > > I am strongly opposed to it as it stands. > > Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of > conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in > channels not related to llvm at all. > > errr, it says: > > "This code of conduct applies to all spaces managed by the LLVM project or > The > > LLVM Foundation. This includes IRC channels, mailing lists, bug trackers, > LLVM > > vents such as the developer meetings and socials, and any other forums > created > > by the project that the community uses for communication. " > > > > > > How does this cover channels not related to llvm? > > > > With this in place I will not consider myself a member of the llvm > community anymore and would be terrified to interact with another llvm > developer in a social setting. > > > > That would be sad, but i guess i'm not sure what is causing that. Is it > that there is discretion in there that you are afraid may apply to you if > taken to some extreme? > > > > Rafael > > On 30 June 2016 at 14:55, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev > > wrote: > > Hello folks, > > > > As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looong) series of > > discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project as > a > > whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741 > > code review. > > > > The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the end > > there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now. It > > isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around > forming > > the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording is > at a > > good point of compromise in a challenging area. > > > > Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the draft. > I’m > > hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and I’m > > hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee and > > resolving any issues around reporting so we can make this an official > part > > of the community. > > > > I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a new > > discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on llvm-dev > if > > folks want to join in active discussion or we can start fresh ones, but I > > would encourage people to carefully read the discussion that has already > > taken place to avoid revisiting areas that have already been heavily > > discussed. > > > > Also, many thanks to the folks who provided all their opinions on the > > mailing list threads and in person in long discussions about this topic. > > > > Thanks, > > -Chandler > > > > [1]: Prior announcements: > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045460.html > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2015-October/008530.html > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/2015-October/000954.html > > > > [2]: Existing threads: > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091218.html > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/099120.html > > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20151019/307070.html > > > > > ___ > > cfe-dev mailing list > > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > > >
Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Jim Rowan wrote: > I don’t know what you meant to imply by “residual clause” — > Sorry, it's a reference to what is usually the last clause in some set of proscribed or allowed behavior in a law, because they are usually vague. IE You will get in trouble if you do A. something specific B. something specific C. something specific D. or if you do something not exactly A-C but equally as bad. if you meant “it’s not particularly important”, then I suggest it is left > out entirely. > No, it's important, they are just deliberately vague. > Apparently at least a few of us have interpreted it to say “the committee > reserves the right to kick you out for any behaviour that violates our > standards which you exhibit anywhere, even if it is completely unrelated to > the llvm community”. > That honestly seems like a pretty uncharitable interpretation. If that actually happens, great, we can fix it. There are good reasons facial challenges ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge) are heavily disfavored. > Personally, I’m just going to ignore it, and thus don’t really care > whether it stays or goes — but I do find it overreaching and intrusive, and > completely inappropriate in such a code of conduct. > I'm going to pretty strongly disagree, so i'll leave it at that. > > > On Jun 30, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev < > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > That's just a residual clause. > It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities here (IE if > you stalk and murder someone in the llvm community, you are going to get > kicked out of the community, regardless of if you did it in a controlled > space) > I mean, i'm subject to legal ethics rules that are very similar, and those > could get me kicked out of an entire profession :) > > I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside > these spaces may, in rare > cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the > conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social > standard." > > But it's not, in practice, any different. > > Basically, if you are looking for complete and total bright line > proscribed standards, they pretty much don't exist anywhere except in > criminal statutes :) > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 2:45 PM Robinson, Paul > wrote: > >> I expect Rafael's concern is because the code also says: >> >> >> >> In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare >> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them. >> >> >> >> So it can apply outside spaces explicitly sponsored by LLVM, in undefined >> circumstances. >> >> --paulr >> >> >> >> *From:* cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel >> Berlin via cfe-dev >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 30, 2016 1:37 PM >> *To:* Rafael Espíndola >> *Cc:* llvm-dev; cfe-dev; openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org); LLDB >> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for >> an LLVM Code of Conduct >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola < >> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> I am strongly opposed to it as it stands. >> >> Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of >> conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in >> channels not related to llvm at all. >> >> errr, it says: >> >> "This code of conduct applies to all spaces managed by the LLVM project >> or The >> >> LLVM Foundation. This includes IRC channels, mailing lists, bug trackers, >> LLVM >> >> vents such as the developer meetings and socials, and any other forums >> created >> >> by the project that the community uses for communication. " >> >> >> >> >> >> How does this cover channels not related to llvm? >> >> >> >> With this in place I will not consider myself a member of the llvm >> community anymore and would be terrified to interact with another llvm >> developer in a social setting. >> >> >> >> That would be sad, but i guess i'm not sure what is causing that. Is it >> that there is discretion in there that you are afraid may apply to you if >> taken to some extreme? >> >> >> >> Rafael >> >> On 30 June 2016 at 14:55, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev >> >> wrote: >> > Hello folks, >> > >> > As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looong) series of >> > discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project >> as a >> > whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the >> http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741 >> > code review. >> > >> > The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the end >> > there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now. It >> > isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around >> forming >> > the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording is >> at a >> > good point of compromise in a challenging area. >> > >> > Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that a
Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Robinson, Paul
wrote:
> | It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities
>
> Not looking for that. Looking to avoid being trolled. ("Trolled" isn't
> the right word here but I've lost track of what the right one is. Hopefully
> my intent is clear enough.)
>
I'm really not sure what you mean here.
>
>
> | I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside
> these spaces may, in rare
>
> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the
> conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social
> standard."
>
>
>
> If that's what it means, is there a problem with writing it that way?
>
What do you believe that explains that the older version did not?
No matter how you write it, it will not precisely define the conduct that
will or will not get you kicked out.
>
>
> | But it's not, in practice, any different.
>
> I concede it's not any different to a lawyer, which I know you are; most
> of us are not lawyers.
>
That's not really relevant of course - i meant that it's not any different
in practice than any other set of social conduct rules one is subject to.
I doubt, for example, either the Google or Sony employee handbooks have
precise bright lines on what conduct is okay and not okay. Yet they still
have serious consequences.
> Again, if it's not any different, is there a problem with writing it in a
> way that provides clarity to the non-lawyer population?
>
I don't think any way you write it will provide clarity as to precisely
what conduct will and will not be okay.
Anyway, since I don't think what you seem to want is possible, and I think
it's fine as-is.
But I understand if you disagree.
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Robinson, Paul
wrote:
> I'm not sure why you're stuck on thinking I want an enumeration of
> offenses.
>
Sorry, it's because i don't see a way to give you the below without it :)
> What I'm looking for (and AFAICT also Rafael and maybe other people) is a
> clearer statement that "offenses" outside of LLVM-defined spaces need to
> meet a much higher bar to be considered problematic within the LLVM
> community.
>
How would you define that bar without defining the offenses?
IE what do you think would make it less subject to vague discretion than
what is there now other than defining the offenses?
> Someone tripping over my posting on the Militant Flat Earth Society should
> not get a free pass to boot me out of LLVM.
>
The single word "rare" in the current code doesn't feel like enough.
>
I don't actually disagree with your criticism, IMHO, i just don't know of a
way to generate more clarity.
--paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* Daniel Berlin [mailto:dber...@dberlin.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 01, 2016 7:46 AM
> *To:* Robinson, Paul
> *Cc:* Rafael Espíndola; LLDB; cfe-...@lists.llvm.org; llvm-dev;
> openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)
> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an
> LLVM Code of Conduct
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Robinson, Paul
> wrote:
>
> | It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities
>
> Not looking for that. Looking to avoid being trolled. ("Trolled" isn't
> the right word here but I've lost track of what the right one is. Hopefully
> my intent is clear enough.)
>
>
>
> I'm really not sure what you mean here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> | I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside
> these spaces may, in rare
>
> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the
> conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social
> standard."
>
>
>
> If that's what it means, is there a problem with writing it that way?
>
>
>
> What do you believe that explains that the older version did not?
>
> No matter how you write it, it will not precisely define the conduct that
> will or will not get you kicked out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> | But it's not, in practice, any different.
>
> I concede it's not any different to a lawyer, which I know you are; most
> of us are not lawyers.
>
>
> That's not really relevant of course - i meant that it's not any different
> in practice than any other set of social conduct rules one is subject to.
>
>
> I doubt, for example, either the Google or Sony employee handbooks have
> precise bright lines on what conduct is okay and not okay. Yet they still
> have serious consequences.
>
>
>
> Again, if it's not any different, is there a problem with writing it in a
> way that provides clarity to the non-lawyer population?
>
>
>
> I don't think any way you write it will provide clarity as to precisely
> what conduct will and will not be okay.
>
>
>
> Anyway, since I don't think what you seem to want is possible, and I think
> it's fine as-is.
>
> But I understand if you disagree.
>
>
>
>
>
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct
>From my perspective: Do whatever makes y'all happy here :) On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 4 July 2016 at 00:42, Robinson, Paul wrote: > > Daniel claimed it was not different, even though he proposed the text. > > I think it is better, as "egregious" (even though it is qualitative) > > helps identify what "rare" circumstances would come under the policy. > > As a non-lawyer I do think it's different. > > I personally agree with you, both on helping identify "rare" (as what, > not when), and for easing non-lawyers minds. > > cheers, > --renato > ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
