5 ms·

Could you explain what part of their code of conduct ( https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/docs/CodeOfConduct.rst https://github.com/llvm-mirror/ll

by nAwYz 8y ago

Could you explain what part of their code of conduct ( https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/docs/CodeOfConduct.rst https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/docs/CodeOfC... ) is racist or sexist?

youdontknowtho 8y ago
There is nothing about their CoC that is racist or sexist. It's this weird sad attempt at a Jedi Mind Trick where the right says "you are being intolerant of people like me who hate tolerance". What the tee total f... The discussion on lobste.rs was actually really good.
- youdontknowtho 8y ago
  What happened to the free exchange of ideas?
trothamel 8y ago
It's not the code of conduct here, but partnering with an organization that denies the members of a protected group a benefit due to their race and gender.
falcolas 8y ago
I highly recommend also reading the "stick" part of the CoC - the reporting guide. A person who broke the CoC by snickering at the repeated use of the word dongle; unless a permanent ban is the result, the accused can not appeal any remedial actions taken against them. They are not even guaranteed to offer their side of the story in the investigation. This CoC, like most, puts the power entirely in the hands of the accuser; it is very much the open source equivalent of a "binding arbitration" clause.
- foldr 8y ago
  I don't follow your comment. The reporting guide doesn't say anything about people snickering at 'dongle', and neither does the post we're commenting on. I also don't see anything in the CoC that suggests that snickering at 'dongle' would constitute a violation.
  - falcolas 8y ago
    There is a well documented precedent for this exact behavior being considered to be sexual harassment and having negative effects on the accused' professional life. > reporting guide doesn't say anything That's part of the problem: explicit behaviors are not called out, only the effect they have on the accuser matters.
    - foldr 8y ago
      >There is a well documented precedent for this exact behavior being considered to be sexual harassment By which you mean there's exactly one instance of it having happened in a completely different community (a Python conference) with a different CoC?

by nAwYz 8y ago

youdontknowtho 8y ago

There is nothing about their CoC that is racist or sexist. It's this weird sad attempt at a Jedi Mind Trick where the right says "you are being intolerant of people like me who hate tolerance". What the tee total f... The discussion on lobste.rs was actually really good.

youdontknowtho 8y ago
What happened to the free exchange of ideas?

trothamel 8y ago

It's not the code of conduct here, but partnering with an organization that denies the members of a protected group a benefit due to their race and gender.

falcolas 8y ago

I highly recommend also reading the "stick" part of the CoC - the reporting guide. A person who broke the CoC by snickering at the repeated use of the word dongle; unless a permanent ban is the result, the accused can not appeal any remedial actions taken against them. They are not even guaranteed to offer their side of the story in the investigation. This CoC, like most, puts the power entirely in the hands of the accuser; it is very much the open source equivalent of a "binding arbitration" clause.

foldr 8y ago
I don't follow your comment. The reporting guide doesn't say anything about people snickering at 'dongle', and neither does the post we're commenting on. I also don't see anything in the CoC that suggests that snickering at 'dongle' would constitute a violation.
- falcolas 8y ago
  There is a well documented precedent for this exact behavior being considered to be sexual harassment and having negative effects on the accused' professional life. > reporting guide doesn't say anything That's part of the problem: explicit behaviors are not called out, only the effect they have on the accuser matters.
  - foldr 8y ago
    >There is a well documented precedent for this exact behavior being considered to be sexual harassment By which you mean there's exactly one instance of it having happened in a completely different community (a Python conference) with a different CoC?