RISC-V Community Code of Conduct

[Jeffrey Osier-Mixon]

This is a message authorized by Dave Patterson, RISC-V Board of Directors Vice Chair

Following the best practices of other  open source organizations, we've adopted a code of conduct for behavior at off-line, on-line, and in-person events, including meetups and conferences. You can view this Code of Conduct on the RISC-V website at:

https://riscv.org/risc-v-foundation-community-code-of-conduct/  

RISC-V Foundation Community Code of Conduct

### Our Pledge 

In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socioeconomic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation. 

### Our Standards 

Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment include: 
- Using welcoming and inclusive language
- Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
- Gracefully accepting constructive criticism 

- Focusing on what is best for the community
- Showing empathy towards other community members 

Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: 
- The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances
- Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
- Trafficking in disinformation, unsubstantiated slanderous rumors, and conspiracy theories
- Public or private harassment 

- Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission
- Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting 

### Our Responsibilities 

The RISC-V Foundation is responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and is expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior.  The RISC-V Foundation has the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful. 

### Scope 

This Code of Conduct applies within all project spaces, and it also applies when an individual is representing the project or its community in public spaces. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by the RISC-V Foundation.  

### Enforcement 

Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported by contacting the RISC-V Foundation at conduct@riscv.org. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. The RISC-V Foundation is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.  Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by the RISC-V Foundation. 

### Attribution 

This Code of Conduct is based on the Contributor Covenant, version 1.4, available at  https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html  For answers to common questions about this code of conduct, see  https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq

[Karsten Merker]

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:21:59AM -0700, Jeffrey Osier-Mixon wrote:

> This is a message authorized by Dave Patterson, RISC-V Board of Directors
> Vice Chair
>
> Following the best practices of other open source organizations, we've
> adopted a code of conduct for behavior at off-line, on-line, and in-person
> events, including meetups and conferences. You can view this Code of
> Conduct on the RISC-V website at:
> https://riscv.org/risc-v-foundation-community-code-of-conduct/

Hello,

unfortunately I have to voice significant concerns both with a
number of specific clauses of this particular code of conduct
text as well as with the general way the RISC-V foundation acts
here towards the RISC-V community at large. The foundation
claims to speak for the RISC-V community at large ("we as
contributors and maintainers pledge...") while tossing a set of
controversial rules over the wall without having the community at
large involved in the design and adoption of these rules even in
the slightest bit. In my view such a behaviour constitutes an
extremely bad style.

The "contributor covenant" text that has been used as a blueprint
here is very much controversial within the open source community;
just put the term into a search engine of your choice and you'll
find tons of arguments about it.

Going through the specific wording:

> *RISC-V Foundation Community Code of Conduct*

>
> ### Our Pledge
>
> In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as
> contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project
> and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of
> age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity
> and expression, level of experience, education, socioeconomic status,
> nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and
> orientation.
>
> ### Our Standards
>

> Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a *positive* environment

> include:
> - Using welcoming and inclusive language
> - Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
> - Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
> - Focusing on what is best for the community
> - Showing empathy towards other community members
>

> Examples of *unacceptable* behavior by participants include:

> - The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention
> or advances
> - Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
> - Trafficking in disinformation, unsubstantiated slanderous rumors, and
> conspiracy theories

Who defines what constitutes "disinformation" or "conspiracy
theories"? If one looks at the world's politics during the
recent years, one has to unfortunately concede that a number of
things that had been widely regarded as "conspiracy theory" or
"tinfoil hat territory" beforehand have in the meantime been
proven to be true and are now accepted as "mainstream knowledge".
Yes, I'm also sometimes annoyed by people posting what I
personally consider to be untenable conspiracy theories, but I
consider this clause a slippery slope that no open-source project
should enter.

I'd also like to point out that this appears to be a clause that
has been added by the RISC-V foundation as it it isn't part of
the original "contributor covenant" and I haven't found this
clause in "contributor covenant"-derived code of conducts used by
other projects.

> - Public or private harassment
> - Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic
> address, without explicit permission
> - Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a
> professional setting

This is what would in German be described as a typical
"Gummiparagraph" (I don't know the proper english translation for
the term; translated literally that would be something like
"rubber clause", meaning something that is worded so broadly that
when asking 5 people about what is covered by it and what isn't,
you get at least 6 different opinions). What "could reasonably
be considered inappropriate in a professional setting" is very
much dependent on the cultural background and things that are
perfectly normal or even expected in some places are considered
inappropriate or even outright insulting in others. I have
personally witnessed issues in this regard between Germany and
China, where a certain behaviour in a business context was
expected by German cultural norms but was considered insulting by
Chinese cultural norms and vice versa. Having a clause that
allows for such broad and mutually-exclusive interpretations in a
code of conduct is a recipe for desaster. It also violates a
basic legal principle that applies to all forms of legislation
that authorize punishments: each clause that can result in a
punishment must be worded so clearly that everybody who might be
subject to it can without doubt recognize which specific
behaviour will cause being punished under the clause.

> ### Our Responsibilities
>
> The RISC-V Foundation is responsible for clarifying the standards of
> acceptable behavior and is expected to take appropriate and fair corrective
> action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior.

If the RISC-V foundation claims to speak for the RISC-V community
at large, then such "clarifications" - as well as the code of
conduct itself - must be discussed and agreed upon in an open
process (and open means really open, i.e. on public
mailinglists, and not "open only to foundation members").

> The RISC-V Foundation has the right and responsibility to
> remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits,
> issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this
> Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any
> contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate,
> threatening, offensive, or harmful.

This clause is problematic in different aspects:

The first problematic part is the right to edit (and not only
reject or remove) expressions made by others if they are deemed
to be in violation of the code of conduct. One can reasonably
argue that removing e.g. insulting forum posts in a
foundation-run forum is ok, but editing somebody else's post so
that the poster's identity is still associated with the edited
post is an absolute no-go as that effectively allows forging
other people's posts and claiming that somebody has written
something that this person actually hasn't written in the way it
is presented.

The second part "[...] or to ban temporarily or permanently any

contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate,

threatening, offensive, or harmful" is a catch-all clause that
opens the way to completely arbitrary actions against anybody
whose opinion somebody within the foundation doesn't like.
Please note that the wording is explicitly chosen in a way that
it doesn't require to show a code-of-conduct violation to ban
somebody, instead it is enough that somebody within the
foundation considers somebody else's "other" behaviour (i.e.
behaviour that is explicitly _not_ covered by the code of
conduct) "inappropriate", whatever one might subsume under that.

The foundation is of course free to enforce whichever policy it
deems appropriate on its own systems, but then it shouldn't claim
to speak for the community at large and it shouldn't create the
impression that any such policies are supported by the community
at large.

> ### Scope
>
> This Code of Conduct applies within all project spaces, and it also applies
> when an individual is representing the project or its community in public
> spaces. Examples of representing a project or community include using an
> official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media
> account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline
> event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by
> the RISC-V Foundation.

This clause again mixes up "the RISC-V project" with "the RISC-V
foundation". There are many people who have provided significant
contributions to the RISC-V ecosystem and legitimately consider
themselves a part of the RISC-V project while not being a member
of the RISC-V foundation. A number of those people have been
active in the RISC-V project since even before the foundation has
been created. The foundation can define who represents the
foundation and define rules for foundation members when
representing the foundation, but the foundation clearly isn't
entitled to enforce arbitrary rules on people within the
community but outside the foundation when those people are acting
in public spaces not owned by the foundation.

> ### Enforcement
>
> Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be

> reported by contacting the RISC-V Foundation at con...@riscv.org. All

> complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response
> that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. The RISC-V
> Foundation is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the
> reporter of an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies
> may be posted separately. Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce
> the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent
> repercussions as determined by the RISC-V Foundation.

How is a "project maintainer" defined? Of which projects?

The last sentence is very problematic - requiring people to
follow the code-of-conduct within the scope that it can be
reasonably applied to is one thing, but threatening people who
don't enforce clauses they consider problematic against third
parties with repercussions against themselves is a no-go. This
part has been removed from the "new" Linux kernel code of conduct
(that is also derived from the "contributor covenant") for good
reasons and it should be removed from this code of conduct as
well.

> ### Attribution
>
> This Code of Conduct is based on the Contributor Covenant, version 1.4,
> available at https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-

> conduct.html For answers to common questions about this code of conduct,
> see https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq

Regards,
Karsten
--
Hiermit widerspreche ich ausdrücklich der Nutzung sowie der Weitergabe
meiner personenbezogenen Daten für Zwecke der Werbung sowie der Markt-
oder Meinungsforschung.

[lkcl]

Karsten I am pleased and relieved that you found a suitable location to reply, and that you did a thorough job of carefully reviewing the document.

I am also extremely relieved that, indirectly, it appears that, finally, it has been recognised that a serious "abuse" problem exists within the RISCV community.

The shockingly poor standard of behaviour towards "outsiders" - which is best described as "intellectual bullying" - ot seems has finally gotten through and resulted in a code - *any* code - being created.

Intellectual bullying is extremely insidious, being both hard to characterise *and* hard to detect, sometimes even by the person being subjected to it. This by the very nature of intellectual bullying being very specifically *actively designed* by its perpetrator(s) to avoid detection.

[Clues to aid in the detection of intellectual bullying include the perpetrator using sarcasm, condescension and patronising language, then "acting surprised and offended" on being caught / challenged. They are also extremely skilled at turning things around and "making it the victim's fault"].

The toxic Code of Conduct known as the "Contributor Covenant", with its politically-motivated list of hateful keywords and phrases poisoning every community it touches, is completely and hopelessly inadequately designed to characterise let alone deal with intellectual bullying.

I will not go into any detail on the toxicity of the hate-filled Contributor Covenant, except to say that every community I have tried to educate and advise the adopters on its adverse effects has been so violent and abusive, ironically in direct violation of the very purpose of *having* a Code of Conduct, that the hypocrisy they displayed left me in no doubt that the adopters were in no way a community that was safe to participate in.

As someone who has been subjected to all forms of bullying since the age of 11, I have, by necessity, made a study of it. Like you, Karsten I recognise the signs that this particular document is designed for the purposes of what I colloquially call "goal post moving".

Goal post moving is itself a type of bullying where the target victim is selected arbitrarily *and in advance*, and the "authority" chooses and defines (and iteratively RE-defines, repeat until "success") the "rules" by which they "eject" the target from the community.

There was a political party that gave its name to this type of behaviour: the Fascist Party from between the First and Second World Wars. I made the mistake once of describing one Social Club's behaviour in the Netherlands as "fascist" (adverb), not realising that, due to the language barrier, they mistook it as an accusation of being "Fascist" (proper noun). [Historically, Holland was subjected to the most awful human rights abuses by the Fascist Party.] I was not a member of that club for very much longer after making that particularly spectacular communications error. Their behaviour, sadly, still has not improved, and this is reflected in their membership numbers.

David: as always, I am going to be direct and honest with you, in good faith as always. The "outsiders" in the RISC-V community (the ones that are not conbected directly to Berkeley or SiFive), if they have not given up entirely, are getting quite fed up of not being consulted. Defining a Code of Conduct *without consultation* is a classic example in a long list of examples of behaviour that, in and of themselves are clearly *in no way* possible to describe as "welcoming" or "inclusive".

Take the announcements surrounding the Barcelona Conference. These announcements stated, "Come and meet the Companies and Universities who have made RISCV what it is today". Absolutely no mention of the huge efforts of the libre and open communities, without whose efforts RISCV would not exist, making the libre/open community feel both exploited and unwelcome.

I have to say that the numerous examples of people who have been shockingly abusive, some of them even taking up a "personal crusade" to hunt down posts on other forums and poison those too, leave us, sadly, it has to be said, in no doubt that the RISC-V Foundation is in no way qualified to define, police *and then become Judge and Jury* on what constitutes "acceptable" community behaviour.

It is also quite likely to be stepping well beyond the limits defined by Trademark Law, which, if correct, could result in full and irrevocable invalidation of the RISC-V Trademark.

The summary then is that whilst this initiative is desperately needed and welcome, its imposition without actual discussion or consultation is not acceptable.

To see an example of one of the most stunningly effective, respectful and simple Code of Conduct and Diversity Statements I have ever seen, look at the Debian pages:

https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct

https://www.debian.org/intro/diversity

The diversity statement is particularly stunning in how deeply respectful and simple it is. They very specifically use "positive reinforcement" - repetition - to emphasise what is welcome. Thus there is *no need* to poison the community with toxic proscribed "activities". Absolutely not a single toxic "hate" or "abuse" behavioural word in sight, and yet it is blindingly obvious that abusive or non-inclusive behaviour will not be tolerated... *all without treating the community like they are already guilty*!

Summary: *The focus is on being WELCOMING*.

The Contributor Covenant is well known to be anything but welcoming. More than that, its modifications, as Karsten points out, leave the community in fear of "Power Abuse" by parties unknown.

The Contributor Covenant is about fear, punishment, control and abuse. Not to STOP such abuse, but to perpetrate and sustain it, by making abuse its core focus.

The Debian Code of Conduct is about inclusion and encouragement, and is clearly welcoming to all who wish to further the Debian Project.

Put simply: why should anyone agree to the imposition of such a hate-filled "goal-moving" document, when persistent bullying has gone unchecked for so long, driving people away from the community and leaving them in fear of speaking out, in case the perpetrators target them further with vengeful retaliation?

Lastly: I do appreciate that this feedback is entirely unsolicited. It is given in GOOD FAITH because I fully recognise the value of what you, and the Founders, have achieved, and would like to see RISC-V become the success that it deserves to become. Given however that the CoC has been imposed, unsolicited and without consultation, you will forgive me for also providing constructive criticism, unsolicited.

I trust that you will give this some careful thought, and will come back - publicly not privately - with insightful questions on how to create a truly welcoming and inclusive RISC-V Community.

I look forward to reading further public and constructive insights from other members of the RISC-V Community, that they feel that it is safe to do so, and that their opinions and concerns will be respected, listened to and addressed in a positive and discerning fashion.

Warmest and with deepest respect,

L.

p.s for anyone considering responding I recommend reading this document, first, and using its advice as a template.
https://www.crnhq.org/12-skills-summary/

[lkcl]

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 6:02:28 PM UTC+1, lkcl wrote:

Karsten I am pleased and relieved that you found a suitable location to reply, and that you did a thorough job of carefully reviewing the document.

I am also extremely relieved that, indirectly, it appears that, finally, it has been recognised that a serious "abuse" problem exists within the RISCV community.

The shockingly poor standard of behaviour towards "outsiders" - which is best described as "intellectual bullying" - ot seems has finally gotten through and resulted in a code - *any* code - being created.

Intellectual bullying is extremely insidious, being both hard to characterise *and* hard to detect, sometimes even by the person being subjected to it. This by the very nature of intellectual bullying being very specifically *actively designed* by its perpetrator(s) to avoid detection.

[Clues to aid in the detection of intellectual bullying include the perpetrator using sarcasm, condescension and patronising language, then "acting surprised and offended" on being caught / challenged. They are also extremely skilled at turning things around and "making it the victim's fault"].

i am providing a concrete example of this type of behaviour, so that it is clear what is meant:

https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msg/isa-dev/Jnon96tVQD0/OTl2CHK5AwAJ

notice how the bully says - incorrectly - that they have been "following the discussion", yet in the very prior message, they make a "summary statement" that is clearly factually incorrect.  if they had apologised or *even acknowledged* that, there would be absolutely nothing to be concerned about.

this type of behaviour has been alarmingly high, and has been persistent and pervasive for *several years* on these community lists.  going unchecked it has driven people away from this community as they feel utterly intimidated and that their views, even if expressed, are hammered down or just plain ignored.

whilst i appreciate that the pressure is extremely high on standards development (the consequences of a mistake are severe, unforgiving *and irrevocable*), there is no excuse for this type of behaviour *or for allowing it to continue*.

l.

[lkcl]

one other thing that the RISC-V Foundation will need to be exceptionally careful about: as a Trademark holder, abuse of the CoC may result in "First Amendment" violations by preventing and prohibiting expression of points of view (and may even have "chilling effects" which cause people to *fear* speaking out)

https://advertisinglaw.foxrothschild.com/2017/02/first-amendment-wins-isu-barred-viewpoint-discrimination-trademark-licensing-program-student-organizations/

Censorship, in other words.

According to the article above, Trademark law may *not* be utilised to prevent or prohibit discussion that the Trademark holder simply... "does not like" or "finds to be objectionable".  This is why the language within the document is particularly troubling, not just in the parts that state "we may do anything deemed reasonable", also in the sections considered to be "conspiracy".

It's also language that is extremely similar to that utilised by Hitler to take control of the German Government in 1939 ("we may do anything we deem to be reasonable" and of course the first thing that Hitler considered "reasonable" was to declare himself a dictator and to close the German Parliament).  In the late 2000s, similar language got through to its second reading through the House of Lords in the United Kingdom before anyone even noticed.

Even those who have signed the RISC-V Membership agreement may have recourse if they feel that their right to First Amendment free speech and expression has been suppressed.  Those that have not *definitely* do.

l.

[Stefan Wallentowitz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 00:22 -0700, lkcl wrote:
> one other thing that the RISC-V Foundation will need to be
> exceptionally careful about: as a Trademark holder, abuse of the CoC
> may result in "First Amendment" violations by preventing and
> prohibiting expression of points of view (and may even have "chilling
> effects" which cause people to *fear* speaking out)

You have the freedom of speak, but everyone else has the freedom not to
listen or to transport your message.

>
https://advertisinglaw.foxrothschild.com/2017/02/first-amendment-wins-isu-barred-viewpoint-discrimination-trademark-licensing-program-student-organizations/
>
> Censorship, in other words.
>
> According to the article above, Trademark law may *not* be utilised
> to prevent or prohibit discussion that the Trademark holder simply...
> "does not like" or "finds to be objectionable". This is why the
> language within the document is particularly troubling, not just in
> the parts that state "we may do anything deemed reasonable", also in
> the sections considered to be "conspiracy".

I have no idea what point you are trying to make, but I see no relation
between the article and a CoC whatsoever.

> It's also language that is extremely similar to that utilised by
> Hitler to take control of the German Government in 1939 ("we may do
> anything we deem to be reasonable" and of course the first thing that
> Hitler considered "reasonable" was to declare himself a dictator and
> to close the German Parliament).

Beside that you should get the history straight (Hitler took control in
1933 not 1939, the latter was start of WWII), I find it extremely
offensive and disrespectful to tens of millions of victims and
survivors to even remotely associate the problems you have with the
RISC-V Foundation to Nazi Germany. That argument alone pretty much
excludes you from any discussion around CoCs.

*plonk*

Stefan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EARECAB0WIQTEsoFH0jfLPN/XOCu4xi2yufZT3AUCXTgMfwAKCRC4xi2yufZT
3PlXAJ9LuALb7CvAfZHji0+YS2REipVNvACfT0Idekz+Np2suukdiAP7sRje7es=
=diCQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Daniel Petrisko]

The case stands as an important reminder that trademark licensing principles are different for governmental organizations because of the overarching constraints of the First Amendment.

- From that article

The RISC-V Foundation is not a United States governmental organization and therefore is not subject to First Amendment restrictions.

 On Jul 24, 2019, at 3:45 AM, Stefan Wallentowitz <ste...@wallentowitz.de> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RISC-V SW Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sw-dev+un...@groups.riscv.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msgid/sw-dev/2578f48b2b8e83f1cf563e5c37e4d01eda119048.camel%40wallentowitz.de.

[lkcl]

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 8:45:11 AM UTC+1, Stefan Wallentowitz wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 00:22 -0700, lkcl wrote:
> one other thing that the RISC-V Foundation will need to be
> exceptionally careful about: as a Trademark holder, abuse of the CoC
> may result in "First Amendment" violations by preventing and
> prohibiting expression of points of view (and may even have "chilling
> effects" which cause people to *fear* speaking out)

You have the freedom of speak, but everyone else has the freedom not to
listen or to transport your message.

>
https://advertisinglaw.foxrothschild.com/2017/02/first-amendment-wins-isu-barred-viewpoint-discrimination-trademark-licensing-program-student-organizations/
>
> Censorship, in other words.
>
> According to the article above, Trademark law may *not* be utilised
> to prevent or prohibit discussion that the Trademark holder simply...
> "does not like" or "finds to be objectionable".  This is why the
> language within the document is particularly troubling, not just in
> the parts that state "we may do anything deemed reasonable", also in
> the sections considered to be "conspiracy".

I have no idea what point you are trying to make, but I see no relation
between the article and a CoC whatsoever.

and you've not asked a question, so there's no opportunity to explain it.  as in: you've closed your mind, and are looking for an opportunity to cause trouble.

in direct violation of efforts to resolve matters and create a decent community where everyone is respected and listened to.

 

> It's also language that is extremely similar to that utilised by
> Hitler to take control of the German Government in 1939 ("we may do
> anything we deem to be reasonable" and of course the first thing that
> Hitler considered "reasonable" was to declare himself a dictator and
> to close the German Parliament).

Beside that you should get the history straight (Hitler took control in
1933 not 1939, the latter was start of WWII),

thank you for the correct information.

 

I find it extremely
offensive and disrespectful to tens of millions of victims and
survivors

why?  why would they remotely have anything to do with the similarity in the language used by both?

 

to even remotely associate the problems you

we, stefan.  we (plural).

 

have with the
RISC-V Foundation to Nazi Germany.

you are lying to yourelf and putting words into my mouth at the same time.  this is inflammatory behaviour, in direct violation of the purpose and intent of any "code".

why would you even _make_ such a statement?  the reason i made the comparison was to shock the RISC-V Foundation Directors into understanding how their ongoing behaviour may be perceived.

to then *assume* the worst and put words into my mouth is itself hugely disrespectful, violates basic common decency, undermines the efforts that i'm making to highlight the problems in the community, and a whole boat-load more.

why on earth would you _do_ that??

That argument alone pretty much
excludes you from any discussion around CoCs.

no, stefan: you're reaching.  what you've done is: assumed the worst (in direct violation of the purpose and intent of any "code"), looked for the first opportunity to attack, and taken it.

this is not helpful behaviour in any way.

and as i recall: the organisation that you are a member of also has an offensive and destructive CoC (based as it is on the poisonous "Contributor Covenant").

*plonk*

??

 

this is not a mature response, stefan.  it's one where you're clearly out to cause trouble.  why did you do that?

l.

[lkcl]

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 1:38:46 PM UTC+1, Daniel Petrisko wrote:

The case stands as an important reminder that trademark licensing principles are different for governmental organizations because of the overarching constraints of the First Amendment.

- From that article

The RISC-V Foundation is not a United States governmental organization and therefore is not subject to First Amendment restrictions.

interesting, i missed that [i found other articles which also mention that Trademark holders are not allowed to discriminate, and only quoted the one].  does it make the point less important, though?

l.

[lkcl]

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fascist

2. A lesser authority (corporation, mayor, cop, boss, parent) who legally issues harsh, burdensome, micro-managing, insensitive, or uncaring orders -- especially when they know, or should know, that their goals can be accomplished with more autonomy and much less hardship or distress. 

not to be confused with definition (1), (3), or (5), stefan.

the emphasis is on "should know", "insensitive", "uncaring", and "hardship or distress".

l.

[Andrew Waterman]

There is just no way that linking to an urban dictionary article on anything, let alone fascism, is within the scope of this mailing list. May I please request that we kill this thread?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RISC-V SW Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sw-dev+un...@groups.riscv.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msgid/sw-dev/e0c6d927-2e84-4aeb-bcc5-fdf5c10e87d2%40groups.riscv.org.

[Tony Arcieri]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:46 AM lkcl <luke.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

i am providing a concrete example of this type of behaviour, so that it is clear what is meant:

https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msg/isa-dev/Jnon96tVQD0/OTl2CHK5AwAJ

notice how the bully says [...]

(Quoting lkcl's response on the linked thread)

again: there is no need to take this tone (and if you had followed the discussions, you would know the full story).
given that in the past you have been seriously abusive, and your tone in this message is also using brusque to the point of rudeness, *and* you have not been keeping up-to-date and make others work harder to point out the errors that you are making, *and* are using intellectual-bullying language, i'm reporting you through the newly-created con...@riscv.org process.  this is much a test *of* that process - to see if it is taken seriously - as it is anything else.

What I'm seeing is an attempt to discredit another member, both by calling them a "bully", and through tone policing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing

In my opinion, your use of tone policing, belittling another member by calling them a "bully", and threatening to report them is in and of itself abusive.

To me community moderators who enforce a CoC need to act as arbiters of disputes. While there are sometimes clear-cut cases where one person out right abusive, to me at least this is not one of those. In cases that are more nuanced, IMO it's the goal of a community management / moderation team to help the individuals involved see both sides of the story and ideally resolve their disputes.

--

Tony Arcieri

iqlusion

[Jeffrey Osier-Mixon]

Normally I do not respond publicly on conduct issues, but the sheer volume of discussion ongoing on this thread as well as other technical threads indicates a need for a response.

There are a number of issues that have been brought up that require time to research and discuss privately. In the meantime, rather than shutting down this thread, I propose that all group discussion related to the CoC be limited to this thread and not to bleed out into technical threads. 

So please limit all CoC discussions to this thread. If I do see conduct discussions going on in other threads, I will limit the participation of the people responding on those threads and possibly shut them down. 

-- 

Jeffrey "Jefro" Osier-Mixon  |  Linux Foundation  |  linuxfoundation.org

[lkcl]

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 8:52:17 PM UTC+1, Tony Arcieri wrote:

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:46 AM lkcl <luke.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

i am providing a concrete example of this type of behaviour, so that it is clear what is meant:

https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msg/isa-dev/Jnon96tVQD0/OTl2CHK5AwAJ

notice how the bully says [...]

(Quoting lkcl's response on the linked thread)

again: there is no need to take this tone (and if you had followed the discussions, you would know the full story).
given that in the past you have been seriously abusive, and your tone in this message is also using brusque to the point of rudeness, *and* you have not been keeping up-to-date and make others work harder to point out the errors that you are making, *and* are using intellectual-bullying language, i'm reporting you through the newly-created con...@riscv.org process.  this is much a test *of* that process - to see if it is taken seriously - as it is anything else.

What I'm seeing is an attempt to discredit another member, both by calling them a "bully", and through tone policing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing

In my opinion, your use of tone policing, belittling another member by calling them a "bully", and threatening to report them is in and of itself abusive.

this is not correct.  i mentioned already that bruce has an ongoing history of abuse - sanctioned by everyone here *and* by the RISC-V Foundation - who have failed to pick up on it and help resolve matters.

what you *have* noticed [and misinterpreted it as a result] is that i am completely unskilled at even *noticing* that i'm feeling distressed or angry, at the time that the incident [attack] occurs.

there's been ***FIVE*** separate incidents exactly like that, in under a week!  each person being hypocritical and expecting *me* to be "perfect".  karsten's words were so distressing to me i began swearing on a public mailing list!  an hour after i wrote them, i thought "what the hell?  why did i do that??"

then i remembered the Mythbusters episode about swearing helping people to tolerate pain (it's a very funny episode: they had to create a "swearing guard", because whilst the cost of puting in a "ding-dong" audio dub is really cheap, having to do the same to the video is *really* expensive).

i was swearing because karsten's words were deeply, deeply offensive to me, calling into question the near-life-long committment that i've made to software libre principlles, at considerable personal cost.

*and i didn't even notice*!

this keeps on happening, and what it does is: it *mask* something terribly important: this forum has people in it whose behaviour is inexcusable *and you - all of you - continue to let it happen*!

it's almost as if you *want* this forum to be poisonous to its participants.

i've lost count of the number of times in which i've used the CRNHQ resources to try to resolve matters and *got not one single fucking response*!  bruce, karsten, stefan, oliver, clifford: you're basically walking into the forum, turning round, dropping your trousers, taking a big steaming dump on absolutely everyone here - not just me - and then walking away!

how on *earth* can anyone get anything positive done in such an environment??

To me community moderators who enforce a CoC need to act as arbiters of disputes. While there are sometimes clear-cut cases where one person out right abusive, to me at least this is not one of those. In cases that are more nuanced, IMO it's the goal of a community management / moderation team to help the individuals involved see both sides of the story and ideally resolve their disputes.

https://www.crnhq.org/cr-kit/#medi

*thank* you, tony, for being literally the first person in over 18 months to offer some advice that is recogniseable as acting in a conciliatory and mediatory role.  i thought about mentioning this when guy spoke up: we absolutely do not need moderation (because it's too close to censorship), we *do* need *mediation*. 

and no, due to the deafening silence, the RISC-V Founders are *in no way* appropriate individuals to act in that role, because their silence *is* the main cause of the problem(s).

the volume (verbal and quantity) is precisely because there is nobody listening and responding [in a positive fashion that says "my concerns are being heard"].

l.

[lkcl]

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 9:01:17 PM UTC+1, Jeffrey Osier-Mixon wrote:

Normally I do not respond publicly on conduct issues, but the sheer volume of discussion ongoing on this thread as well as other technical threads indicates a need for a response.

thank you, jeffrey.  keeping the discussion public is important, because this has been ongoing for such a long time, with so many people having been affected (and given up, and left the community), that the only way to properly restore faith, and resolve things, is going to be if the discussion is public.

for our group, we *have* to act in a fully transparent fashion.  so please note, in advance: if i receive any private responses, they *will* be published.  i have to do this, because i am held accountable and there can be *no* possibility of being accused of "hiding something".

 

There are a number of issues that have been brought up that require time to research and discuss privately.

i can only apologise for the... volume of issues.  the root of the problems go back *several years* - even before i joined.  if you have questions for me, specifically, *please* keep them public: we have a mailing list (or can set one up especially).  i really mean it about the transparency.

 

In the meantime, rather than shutting down this thread, I propose that all group discussion related to the CoC be limited to this thread and not to bleed out into technical threads.

that's a good idea.

 

So please limit all CoC discussions to this thread. If I do see conduct discussions going on in other threads, I will limit the participation of the people responding on those threads and possibly shut them down. 

 good idea.  hopefully people - myself included - will not be so distressed by what they read from others that they forget that.

what i'm really having difficulty with is the fact that our team is trying to develop a *libre* processor - one that's designed to reduce cost and power consumption of commodity electronics devices for hundreds of millions of people world-wide - in such an absolutely awful and toxic environment.

we've got trump ordering US .GOV websites to change wording to deny climate change *at the same time* as storms and heatwaves causing power blackouts, ice caps melting at rates that are likely to put major cities and in some cases *entire countries* (like bangladesh) under water within a couple of decades, and we've got people here trying *desperately* to undermine our efforts to get through the intransigent pathological behaviour of RISC-V Foundation by playing the "blame" game!

*WAKE UP* people, for god's sake!

l.

[lkcl]

you've no doubt heard that the health of a company can be guaged by the dilbert cartoons posted on the company noticeboards: this one seems pretty appropriate....

[lkcl]

respecting jeffrey's request, i'm moving this paragraph from where it was originally written:

https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msg/isa-dev/SLprSJzpgCQ/TZfDn5XMBgAJ

the product that we're developing - which *has* to be developed in a fully transparent fashion - *cannot* be developed in *any* form of secrecy by entering into an agreement with the RISC-V Foundation as its Membership Agreement currently stands, due to the restrictions on communications imposed by Section 5.  [note, again, to Jeffrey: efforts to engage the RISC-V Foundation on why that is have also gone unanswered, repeatedly.  one "effort" to "explain" matters was once again "walk into the conversation, dump some text, walk out".  no *actual* effort made to *engage* - at all].

what's happening is basically that we're getting quite pissed off at the exclusion from *innovation*.  our team's efforts are unique in that it was never envisaged by the RISC-V Foundation that anyone would:

(a) innovate well beyond - and ahead - of what was "approved" by the RISC-V Foundation.

(b) have a LEGITIMATE BUSINESS CASE for operating OUTSIDE of RISC-V Membership (full transparency due to privacy concerns in hardware right now)

(c) be FULLY Libre for the same business reasons.

as mentioned before: the expectation is that anyone wishing to "innovate" (large Corporations, Universities) shall join the RISC-V Foundation, and that "open source" developers shall never, under any circumstances, have a need to do *anything* other than implement *EXISTING* standards.

efforts to engage with the RISC-V Foundation on this have been repeatedly and systematically ignored.

efforts to *remind* the RISC-V Foundation Directors that this is not acceptable have begun to piss off *other members* of this community.

in addition, our exclusion from access to resources and participation in innovation - in particular the critical and crucial context of discussions that are kept secretive (within the walls of the RISC-V "Members") which includes the mailing lists, wiki, and documentation - leaves us ill-informed.

being ill-informed SERIOUSLY pisses other members off who *DO* have access to those resources and who participated in those innovations.  they feel very strongly that their time is being wasted, cannot understand why we do not join the RISC-V Foundation (particularly when it is now monetarily-zero-cost for "open source" developers) and cannot understand why we have such completely stupid "moral objections" to the use of github.  it's taken something like 10 to fifteen repetitions of the reasons why we cannot join for this to stop happening (substituted instead for stone-cold silence).

what all of this tells us is this: the Code of Dishonour is a complete red herring.

the Code of Dishonour is a way for the RISC-V Foundation Board of Directors to *evade* their responsibility (definition: "response - ability", as in, "the ability to respond"), masking as it does a systematic ignoring of a completely unique set of circumstances that they did not - in any way - foresee when setting up the RISC-V Foundation.

*when* that is fixed - when they begin to respond and better take into consideration the needs of "outsiders" - things will start to get better.

l.

[Jacob Lifshay]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:47 AM lkcl <luke.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> what's happening is basically that we're getting quite pissed off at the exclusion from *innovation*. our team's efforts are unique in that it was never envisaged by the RISC-V Foundation that anyone would:

Luke: Please remember that libre-riscv members have different
responses to the RISC-V Foundation's actions (or lack thereof), so
therefore, a better way to state that would be "... that I'm getting
quite pissed off ...". I personally am not angry, more annoyed.

Do note that I do have different standards than Luke and do use GitHub
(https://github.com/programmerjake). I personally am not going to join
the RISC-V Foundation at this time because of the conflict of interest
between libre-riscv's current funding requiring openness and the
RISC-V Foundation effectively requiring NDAs to join. I'd be very
happy to work with the RISC-V Foundation and others in public.

Jacob Lifshay

[lkcl]

On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 2:50:35 PM UTC+1, Jacob Lifshay wrote:

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:47 AM lkcl <luke.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> what's happening is basically that we're getting quite pissed off at the exclusion from *innovation*.  our team's efforts are unique in that it was never envisaged by the RISC-V Foundation that anyone would:
Luke: Please remember that libre-riscv members have different
responses to the RISC-V Foundation's actions (or lack thereof), so
therefore, a better way to state that would be "... that I'm getting
quite pissed off ...". I personally am not angry, more annoyed.

appreciated the clarification, jacob.

 

Do note that I do have different standards than Luke and do use GitHub
(https://github.com/programmerjake). I personally am not going to join
the RISC-V Foundation at this time because of the conflict of interest
between libre-riscv's current funding requiring openness and the
RISC-V Foundation effectively requiring NDAs to join.

it is very common for libre / open developers to refuse to sign NDAs, particularly those working on reverse-engineering of intransigent corporations' products.  accusations of "taint" can result in copyright infringement lawsuits, and result pretty much immediate termination of their involvement in software libre development.

this refusal to be "silenced" drives many companies to try to use blackmail, instead.  Microsoft tried it on when i was working for Internet Security Systems.  they actually phoned up the CEO of ISS and said, "can't you fire him??", to which the CEO replied, "well, y'know, Mr Microsoft weenie: if we fire him, he's just gonna keep on doing these embarrassing security reports and reverse-engineering research anyway.  so the question you have to ask is: do you want him on the inside pissing in, where we can keep an eye on him, or do you want him on the outside pissing in?"

I'd be very
happy to work with the RISC-V Foundation and others in public.

likewise - in an enviroment that's safe, welcoming and empowering to do so.

l.

[lkcl]

https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msg/isa-dev/N63YU9Rnyso/x5GSAPXYFAAJ

with thanks to Andrew for clarifying that there is a difference between "Z" prefix extensions and "X" prefix extensions.

we have *very specifically* and *very deliberately* requested and proposed a *Z* reciprocal square root extension - not an X "custom" extension, because of the high-profile mass-volume requirements of the Libre RISC-V GPU.

it's not a proprietary product where the compiler will never see the light of day: tens of thousands of games programmers will end up downloading and using the compiler toolchain.  the pressure on the gcc and LLVM developers to accept it as a de-facto standard if the RISC-V Foundation does not respond will drive them absolutely nuts.

so.

again.

for about the sixth or seventh time.

what    is    the    process    by     which    outsiders    may    propose    OFFICIAL   extensions?

l.

[lkcl]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 9:21:15 AM UTC+1, lkcl wrote:

 

what    is    the    process    by     which    outsiders    may    propose    OFFICIAL   extensions?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/02/28/failure-to-enforce-trademarks-if-you-snooze-do-you-lose/#65dbf1ed6c22

again: for the sixth or seventh time: it is the responsibility of a Trademark holder to RESPOND.

if we do NOT hear from a RISC-V Foundation Director with a suitable response in a timely fashion (one that does not cause DELAY), we will ASSUME - in good faith - that it is reasonable to use the "Z" prefix for extensions that fall into the very specific category of being mass-volume high-profile libre UNIX-related proposals.

if we receive comments from anyone that is *not* a Director of the RISC-V Foundation, whilst we will be grateful for their constructive input, their input will also respectfully be ignored as regards the above question.

l.

[lkcl]

https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!topic/isa-dev/8knne5BtlvM

so here we see an example of the kind of mess that can occur because the RISC-V Foundation has not met its obligation under Trademark Law (and plain common sense) to provide a documented process - one that is accessible to everyone - on how to propose innovative extensions.

i have confidence and faith that this one will work itself out, Jeffrey, however it is worth keeping an eye on, as early contributions from extremely valuable technically experienced contributors in this specialist field came crashing to a halt when Andrew stated "I capitulate".

there's still way too much in the way of combatitive "winning", that is getting in the way of the process of discovery:
https://www.crnhq.org/cr-kit/ - The search for Perfection sets you up for “Winners -v- Losers”

and there is *definitely* too much in the way of "power over" rather than "power with":

https://www.crnhq.org/cr-kit/#power

l.

[lkcl]

https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msg/isa-dev/0emw3Y8ZNxY/iWDAX1kUAQAJ

an accidental oversight by clifford, the key developer on the bitmanip working group, assumed that it was acceptable to place people into an impossible drastic position of compromising on integrity or to be classed as second-rate citizens in the RISC-V community.

[this places clifford, who is already under pressure, in the awkward position of having to monitor *two* locations for review of bitmanip, and to have to manually cut/paste information from one to the other.  it should therefore come as no surprise if he decides not to spend his personal free time doing that].

https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.en.html#GitHub

github has an "F" on the GNU ethical repository criteria.

i have spoken about this before.

i have not received a response.

i have recommended the simple idea to provide a gateway service which would allow even one-way email interaction between github and software libre developers (who could then use web-to-email services to anonymously obtain copies of the github page by email, and thus interact two-way)

i have not received a response.

when are we going to receive a response which says that the RISC-V Foundation is taking this matter seriously?

l.

[lkcl]

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 6:22 PM RISC-V Community Response Team <respon...@riscv.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Luke,
>
> This message comes from the RISC-V Foundation's community response team, not from one particular person. You can respond to the team directly at respon...@riscv.org.

appreciated: however i am required to act transparently.  please note below and in future communications, as i mentioned explicitly and clearly already: they are required to be entirely public.  in this way, everybody gets to see what is going on, everyone is presented with an opportunity to face up to the challenges - together - and from there, things get better.

no hiding.  no shadows.


> This is a response to a number of Code of Conduct notices you posted or Cc'd to the conduct list starting on July 16. We are sorry for the difficulty you have encountered with individuals in the RISC-V public communities, and we want to do what we can to alleviate the issues to make these lists a safe place for everyone to participate.

fiinally, thank you.  i will be posting this (in full) on sw-dev under the thread permitted by jeffrey, following the last guidelines that he set (which permits public discussion there and there ONLY), because i am required to engage in full transparency.  please do note this in future, that i give you permission for (and require) all discussions to be transparent in this fashion.

now, i _did_ read the entire message, and noted that the advised location - comm...@riscv.org - did not also include a location which said where the archives of discussions would be made transparently, permanently and independently irrevocable available.

ah: after some fussing about, it was able to find it:
https://groups.google.com/a/riscv.org/forum/#!forum/community

it says,
"Community. You must be a member of this group to view and participate in it. Membership is by invitation only. This group is invite only, so you may not apply for membership."

so it is a private list, with no public transparency, no public archives, and, quite likely, with censorship being enactable.  unfortunately, therefore, it does not meet the public transparency criteria that i am required to engage in.

so instead i will use the thread permitted by jeffrey, until such time as a fully-transparent list is set up.

in this way, if anyone has anything to say (about the response that i have received, or what i have written below, or just has something to say), please do speak up.

if however you do not feel safe in speaking up, may i recommend that you contact the response-team privately and in confidence, asking them to either anonymously forward what you write or to "paraphrase" it in such a way as to remove any possible identifying characteristics, context or information that could be used to identify you.


> While we are not able to disclose the nature or severity of any enforcement, we do want you to know that we have consulted privately with the people you named in your complaints as well as with several others, and we are taking steps to ensure that everyone behaves within the spirit of the existing Code of Conduct.

this is a start.  however please be aware that it is just the start, and, crucially, the very existence of the complaints is a symptom, not a disease in itself.

the "disease" is the perspective by the Founders that the "external" community comprises people who have nothing to contribute to the innovation and development of RISC-V's ISA.

every single one of my questions asking how the process of being actively involved in the innovation *and development* of RISC-V have been ignored by the Directors.

now, *some* response was given (about a year ago), concerns raised not just by me but several others as well.  they felt like a "dismissal".  further enquires have not met with a response.

this *causes* people to feel distressed, ignored, frustrated and ultimately to give up [and i am not the only one]

if they had not ignored the questions we would NOT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.

you see how that works?

so please: _do_ go back to the Board of Directors and tell them, straight-up, from me, that they still haven't responded.

my biggest concern is that they may be using this [ongoing] complaint as an avoidance tactic.


> In addition, there were several issues that we heard you bring up, including concerns about the Code itself.

as indeed did karsten, in a very well-written and insightful message.

[who then ironically displayed violent hate-filled and completely inappropriate behaviour in direct violation of basic human dignity (and the Code itself) in a message where he tried to "disassociate" himself from a follow-up comment in which i indicated that i agreed with something that he had written... *sigh*]

this really tells you everything you need to know, namely that there is a belief that the Code - any code - applies in a "selective" fashion.

namely, that if people mention that someone is clearly violating basic human dignity and causing problems that are not in the interests of the community, they *GENUINELY* do not feel that they THEMSELVES have to follow the same community guidelines or standards!

i cannot even begin to count the number of times that this has happened!  it's extremely ironic.

can you tell me: do you believe that it is okay that people violate basic human dignity and safe community guidelines whilst "accusing" someone of violating those guidelines when someone points out that someone else has violated those guidelines??

yes, really - this is happening!

* person A feels threatened and spots a community violation.
* person A describes to list that person B has violated community guidelines
* person *C* ACCUSES person A of violating community guidelines in their message, and person C violates community guidelines *WITH* their accusation!

it's surreal and kafkaesque, i am having difficulty even believing that this is happening... and what's more *you haven't noticed*!



> These are not conduct issues regarding individuals but we want you to know that we hear your concerns and want to respond to them.

appreciated.  however let's keep it public, please, for several reasons.  not least so that others may learn from the process, may make comments and give constructive feedback, and, crucially, they may act as witnesses.

in addition, people who are giving serious consideration to utilising RISC-V may see precisely and exactly what is truly going on.

they may also see how *they* might be treated if they were to participate in RISC-V.


> In particular, we recognize that the existing CoC does not currently outline a response process. We have established a response team within the Foundation who is consulting with a number of experts, and we will be publishing a response process for public comment in the near future.

well... they _could_ also consult with the people *in* the community!  several of us (including myself) have researched this and been leaders of software libre projects for several decades.

this is one of the key complaints regarding the behaviour of the Founders: the basic assumption is that they are within their absolute inalienable inviolate rights to IMPOSE on others.

there's no consultation.

no feedback.

every attempt to give feedback has been misconstrued or ignored.

there's been no questions.

i'm not even seeing any questions in what you've written: to your credit, i'm seeing *some* indication that there is a willingness to change.

however until that process involves *asking questions*,


> We also need to let you know that there were several issues brought to our attention about your conduct on the lists, and also a number of people who contacted us to say that your activity on the public lists was preventing them from participating in the technical discussions.

*sigh*, i hear you.  i totally get it.  now, according to the crnhq.org resource on "empathy" [1], i am supposed to acknowledge these things: repeat them back to you and make sure that you reply "yes", before proceeding any further.
[1] https://www.crnhq.org/cr-kit/#empathy

there is a miinor problem with that, related to delays in mailing-list communications.  the above communications advice was, i believe, specifically designed for real-time communication.

so let's do this: allow me to write in my own words the crux of these issues, however from after that point onwards, please if you believe i have *NOT* understood, ignore it entirely, ok?  the only reason for continuing is to expedite the process.

please do NOT assume that i am "making excuses", ok?

* people believe that i am acting aggressively and as a bully.
* inappropriate discussion of personal issues on a public list
* telling people "what to do" - ordering them about
* criticising members and Founders ["ad hominem attacks"]
* failure to listen to people trying to help in good faith

does that, in essence, summarise the complaints?


> Primarily, the complaints were that discussions involved:
>
> - displays of aggression, accusations of abuse and disrespect, and insistence that people in the discussion agree with you, with your behavior described as "dismissive", "disrespectful", and "bullying" by several people

*sigh* this is a difficult one.  unfortunately, i don't have enough experience to be able to give you any direct answer, here.  or, more to the point, a lifetime of being bullied and ostracised leaves me with insufficient... how-can-i-put-it... insufficient... experience / techniques / acumen - you get the idea - to be able to agree *or disagree* with you, here.

please do be advised that, as i write that, i am reading this:
https://www.crnhq.org/cr-kit/#power

according to that, what i have just written above potentially falls into the "Victim" category.  please do not view what i wrote above as requesting "Victim"-style support or responses.

the only thing that i think will help here, is to advise you to look again more closely at what actually happened.

* you have someone who feels extremely frustrated that they are not being listened to.
* they have far less skill at communication than most.
* they have way, waaaay less resources (finance, health) than most people here.
* they are driven by "ethical considerations" to make an effort to bring to peoples' attention an unethical issue *despite* being keenly aware of their communications and resource limitations.
* those efforts are dismissed.
* the person becomes even *more* frustrated, and redoubles their efforts
* people get really fricking fed up and start making up excuses and attacks
* they then seek to make it ABOUT THAT PERSON... not the actual issues.

you see how that works?

so i reiterate.

if the RISC-V Foundation's Directors had f******g well listened in the first place, WE WOULD NOT BE IN THIS SITUATION.

two *years*, guys.

*two years* trying to get through their thick heads that something's desperately, desperately wrong.

two *YEARS* of being dismissed, ignored, treated with disrespect, deliberately misconstrued, with people putting words into my mouth, and much *much* more.

there's no *way* i should have to put up with that much shit.  grr.  enough on that.  sorry for venting.


> - changes of subject from technical issues to personal ones on technical groups

and where should they have gone?  with absolutely no response for TWO YEARS, and no "Official" location, where the hell *should* those issues have been posted, mm?



> - references out to personal communications guideline resources, largely seen as instructions to others on how to behave (described as "tone policing")

ahh so *this* is why they did not respond.  *sigh*.  why did they not say anything??  why on earth did they not admit that??  it would then have been possible to deal with things in a manner that they *did* find appropriate!

wait... hang on... no that's... "avoidance tactics".

look closely again.  the first time that i said that i was going to use the crnhq.org resources was as a guide *FOR MYSELF*.  ***I*** followed the guidance of that resource.

i did *NOT*, repeat ***NOT*** demand that ***EVERYONE ELSE*** follow that resource.

bottom line: i'm sorry to have to inform you that you've just been "had".  you've just been hoodwinked by people who wanted an excuse - any excuse - to not answer.

why do they not want to answer?  because they don't want to be seen to be agreeing with me.  they *want* to see me as the scape-goat.  the sole exclusive problem-maker.  the source of ***AAALLLL*** problems with the RISC-V Community.

they're not at fault.

they did nothing wrong.

everything is fine.

lkcl is the only one who is causing problems.

get rid of him.

if he tries to make any effort to be conciliatory, ignore it, pretend it never happened, then wait for the next opportunity to attack.

... you see how that works?

now, unfortunately, being so direct about this, they're going to be pissed.  they'll be extremely angry, they'll fight, they'll display outrage, and complain further and bitterly to you even more.  again: this is, unfortunately, more "avoidance".

the bottom line here is that, as i described above with that A-B-C irony, above, there is a *genuine* belief by the people who contacted you that (a) person B did nothing wrong and (b) they, as person C, they have done nothing wrong, either: only person *A* is at fault.

tactic identified: to help undermine the genuine good-faith efforts of person A to utilise, deploy and follow resources *known* to help resolve conflict, rather than respond to those efforts, they choose instead to ACCUSE person A of, quotes tone policing quotes.

what they've said is: LKCL, you F&&&&&R  you DON'T GET to tell us we're wrong.  we're going to TRASH your efforts at reconciliation.  har har.  you're not in charge.  doesn't matter if the resources you post would actually help: WE DON'T WANT TO LISTEN.

why would they do that?  what is their goal here?  their goal is to undermine.  it's not in the slightest bit seeking actual resolution.  this should be *abundantly* clear: these are people who WANT to engage in whatever tactics they can get their hands on to maintain their "rightness".

they're extremely intelligent people, so it is going to take a *lot* of effort on your part to not just identify this, but to get them to even admit it.

so.

i have a recommendation for you.  put the "resources" that i have [frequently] referenced in front of the experts that are being consulted (at probably great expense *sigh*).  ask for their opinion on them.

note this: the people behind crnhq.org have *literally* ended wars between tribes that have lasted centuries.

"Invisible Dynamics" has been used by large Corporations for several decades (mostly German companies such as Mercedes Benz because the Systemic Laws and their effectiveness has been empirically demonstrated in that country to be extremely high)


> - inappropriate subject matter, particularly leveling criticism against the Foundation and other community members rather than discussing technical issues on their own merits

dude[s] - are you serious??  or, i should be saying, YES OF COURSE!!  and what's wrong with that??

or, more to the point, why is it quotes inappropriate quotes?

why when the RISC-V Foundation has categorically and systematically failed for TWO YEARS to respond, is it quotes inappropriate quotes to SAY so??

where *else* should i have raised this??

what resource was provided *BY THE RISC-V FOUNDATION* which allowed such complaints and criticism to be levelled?

and most importantly, *WHY DID THE RISC-V FOUNDATION DIRECTORS NOT STEP IN*?

why on *earth* have they left it for *TWO YEARS* without a response??

oink.

so, again: this is avoidance, and entirely misses the point.

basically, what these people - both the RISC-V Founders as well as the members - are saying is:

* we want to stick our heads in the sand
* we don't want things to change so that you (lkcl) or any other "outsider" can participate in RISC-V Innovation.
* we are extremely embarrassed by your efforts to raise this issue
* we believe that we have been "hurt" by your efforts to ask *genuine* questions.
* we don't care that no "official complaint" procedure exists.
* we don't want to help you to change things
* we don't see why we should have to.
* we want to make it aaaaalll about you.
* we are perfect.
* you're the problem.
* you're the sole exclusive source of all problems in the RISC-V Community.
* you don't get to tell us otherwise.
* you hurt us, therefore we will hurt you.


> - accusations of abuse, intellectual bullying, and long explanations of why and how someone is attacking or belittling you

yes?  and?  if they are true, can you see that by making them "accusations", what those people are saying is, "we don't believe him.  we don't BELIEVE that another person's dignity and basic fundamental rights matter".

do you see how that works?

by calling my words "accusations", what they've said is:

* this person (lkcl), his feelings don't matter to us.  at all.
* we are right.  he is wrong.
* we are not listening.  we are not prepared to listen.
* it is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE for us to engage in abuse.
  (or - we DON'T BELIEVE we are engaging in abuse)
* it is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE for us to engage in intellectual bullying
  (or - we DONT' BELIEVE we are engaging in intellectual bullying).

so this is - again - avoidance tactics of the worst kind.

question.

why did they not *respond* to those "accusations"?  (they weren't accusations, but that's a different - additional - story)?

why did they not say:

* ah!  i am so sorry!
* i did not mean to say something that would be perceived in that fashion!
* i am so sorry that you felt upset!
* please forgive me!
* HOW COULD I HAVE DONE BETTER?
* HOW CAN WE WORK TOGETHER?

*LOOK REALLY CAREFULLY* at how i respond, team, to every "accusation" levelled against me.

(1) i apologise
(2) i ask for feedback
(3) i [usually, once i realise that the conversation has degenerated] deploy a resource and follow the advice of that resource well-known to reduce conflict

do people respond?  no they do not.


> - accusations of closed-mindedness toward others who are trying in good faith to work with you on a given topic

yes.  i'm extremely grateful for those people and their efforts.  i was really saddened by how some of those conversations degenerated, or were over-run, or my own limitations caused them to give up.

however - if you look more closely, you'll see a pattern.  the pattern is that i am the *only person* consistently and persistently raising key issues that the RISC-V Foundation Directors *are not listening*.

that i am doing so in a way which is "annoying" and beyond my communications capabilities to express should in *no way* be used as an "excuse".


> Please note that the response team spent an inordinate amount of time researching these issues, just as we did with the complaints you made, and reading back through the technical lists to the beginning. Our goal is to make sure that everyone in the community feels safe. You are part of that community as well -

appreciated.

> but you are also one of the people who is making the community unsafe for others.

noooo, you don't get to make that kind of accusation.  this is completely BEYOND inappropriate.  up until this point, you've stated facts and issues, as well as an indication of willingness to progress and accept feedback, which is great.

at this point, you've crossed the line and made a completely inappropriate accusation, one which in and of itself makes me feel completely unsafe, thus completely undermining and invalidating the entire prior paragraph.

*please take more care* in future.  *ask questions*.  do *not* make assumptions or accusations.  doing so completely destroys your ability to remain impartial and effective.


> What we would like to do is give you clear guidelines on conduct within the technical lists, to assure that your criticism and commentary about the CoC is being taken into account and will be enacted equally among all participants. We also have set up a separate area where you can discuss these issues in public if you wish. We will continue to respond privately in accordance with the CoC as published.

apologies: i have made it very clear that i will only engage publicly and transparently, and have also made it explicitly clear that if i receive private replies, it will be assumed to be in error and they will be published, in full.

also: we still need to discuss the inappropriateness of the CoC itself, and its "imposition" without consultation.  karsten expressed this best.

> Going forward, the technical discussion lists will be specifically for technical issues only.

good.

> All non-technical discussions should be held on the public group comm...@riscv.org,

hm, i have not seen that set up here:
https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/

ah, found it:
https://groups.google.com/a/riscv.org/forum/#!forum/community

ok, so as i mentioned above: it's an invite-only list, and its archives are not fully and transparently available.

this does not make me feel safe.

full transparency is the *only way* that i will feel safe to engage with the RISC-V Foundation.

it is also a requirement of the Funding that i have received from the NLNet Foundation.  i have mentioned this before.  the funding that we have received is under the "Privacy and Enhanced Trust Programme":

https://nlnet.nl/PET/

to engage in "secretive conversations" completely undermines the transparency under which our team *faithfully promised* to uphold, in order that end-users would be able to review what we are doing.

> including public complaints against the Foundation. Individuals who engage in inappropriate discussions on public lists will be warned privately and, if they persist, their participation will be moderated on that group for future discussions. This response and escalation process will be outlined in detail and open for public comment in the near future.

good.  i note however that there is no indication that those public comments will actually be *listened* to.  this failing has been why so many people have abandoned RISC-V.

> Personal complaints should be made either to the conduct alias at con...@riscv.org (for issues that transgress the published code of conduct) or the new leadership alias at leade...@riscv.org (for all other issues). And as mentioned, you can reach this response team directly at respon...@riscv.org. All of these aliases are required to treat information and discussions confidentially.

if you can take into consideration the above fact - that i am *required* to act in a fully transparent fashion - that would be good.

obviously there will be private off-line conversations, however for resolving this matter effectively, and to respect the requirements of the Charitable Organisation known as NLNet, we *will* need to keep this entirely public and transparent.

i look forward to hearing from you on how that requirement is to be met.

> As guidance - discussion on the technical lists should be limited to technical issues only. Personal issues, grievances against others or against the Foundation, discussions about conduct, and accusations of abuse need to be directed to proper channels as outlined above. Please note again that this is the case for everyone, not just you.

good.  finally.  i *will* hold you to that.

> We appreciate the detailed description of your concerns.

thank you.  finally someone is listening.  there is a lot to deal with.

now, normally, i would provide a summary.  however the above is so long, having spent nearly two hours writing, that i need a break (my head is spinning i have been concentrating for so long... and not getting any technical work done) and to think for a day or so before writing further.

this will give you time to review the above, and, in particular, to review the oversight that the comm...@riscv.org list is both "closed" and "secretive", with no transparency of any kind.

thank you - again - for your efforts.  they are really appreciated.

l.

> --
> RISC-V Community Response Team
>

[lkcl]

We have an additional matter to highlight, which came up again three weeks ago. Andrew: hello, you have a great sense of humour and are extremely technically competent, and the bridging role that you have played has been extremely valuable. I do however need to share sone insights and will refer to you in the third person when doing so, ok? I am aware that you are there.

[commentary: the above sentence is taken from guidelines by both UNICEF as well as from a book titled "how to talk to kids so that kids will listen and how to listen so that kids will talk". The advice applies equally to adults although obviously needs translating by adding N decades to the participant language...]

Three weeks ago I spotted a comment by Andrew, "the very scary Krste". This was very funny and yet at the same time very revealing.

The incident being referred to was when I utilised knowledge of the Systemic Laws of Organisations to identify a problem in interactions with Krste.

One of the Systemic Laws states:

"Both seniority in expertise and in length of service must be respected".

This should be really obvious as to why this Systemic Law exists. Many cultures have it deeply ingrained as "respect for the elderly" however this is not the full story.

What I identified was that, unfortunately, Krste, for whatever reason (most likely due to lack of time) would enter a discussion, make a statement (in the form of a declaration), and either leave or write in such a way that no possible opening exists for further engagement.

The problems arise as follows:

1. Under the above Systemic Law, only people with similar expertise or similar length of service are in a position to be able to express doubt or question Krste's "double whammy" authority.

2. Only people such as Andrew, and David, and others with close ties to the Founders fall into BOTH categories.

3. Very few people on these lists have the TECHNICAL expertise to be able to respond and POTENTIALLY express doubt or question any mistakes, but run afoul of the "length of service" part of the Systemic Law.

4. Everyone else is ******d, both ways.

Now, as someone who is entirely independent, with no University Affiliation, no "Employer" to threaten me with dismissal, and no "Reputation" to lose in Free Software projects, I was literally the *only* person who could raise the red flag on this one.

I did the best that I could, and explained that people felt intimidated into being unable to respond. I was rewarded with a response from Krste that described by constructive insights, given in good faith, as "an ad hominem attack".

Efforts to explain that this was simply not the case did not receive a response.

This is what Andrew colloquially and amusingly referred to as "the scary Krste".

The problem is one of perspective. The Founders, through close association in their fantastic journey to develop RISC-V, have a close bond where they feel comfortable and safe to discuss ideas, good and bad, and work together.

This has been extended from its beginnings in UCB out to SiFive and from there to the (sadly, closed participatory) Foundation Charter.

Additional recognised experts have declared their interest and capabilities, signed the Membership Agreement which indicates a formal recognition of the above Systemic Law, i.e defers to the authority of the RISCV Foundation.

These lists operate completely outside of that formal structure. With very few people in the world even being *aware* of the Systemic Laws of Organisations, compliance with them is usually by accident (as an aside, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the despised Contributor Covenant IN NO WAY complies with the Systemic Laws).

So there are three main things here:

1. There is a failure by the Founders to appreciate the enormous power that they wield. That their length of service *and* expertise combine to make it extremely difficult to interact with them if they close their minds on any topic.

2. That *amongst* those same Founders (you included, Andrew, bless you), there is puzzlement and a lack of understanding *of* the enormous amount of power that they wield and

3. This results in *another* Systemic Law Violation: "denial of reality".

These two combined Systemic Law Violations are particularly unfortunate. The further up the power tree that "denial" occurs, the more harm it does to the Organisation.

This is outlined very explicitly in the book "Invisible Dynamics". An entire Organisation can be locked up solid if its CEO denies reality.

Why?

Because, very obviously, as the CEO, absolutely nobody but the shareholders has any power or influence over them, and only then by way of "extreme conflict" which starts to run afoul of *more* Systemic Laws.

The last thing to mention here is to emphasise that because I do not appear to have any reputation to speak of, or standing in any community, and because of the forthright honesty that I have always engaged in, publicly and transparently, for over 20 years, it is very easy to be tempted to dismiss, devalue or mischaracterise the role that I play.

I should not have to be here. I should not have to be spending my time (and spending sponsors and charitably donated funds) raising these issues.

This should *already* have been a safe and welcoming environment where people can share ideas and work on innovation and advancement of RISC-V, regardless of whether they work for a billion dollar company, have a PhD, or are a privacy advocate respecting software freedom.

RISC-V is *not safe* to take to a wider world, displacing ARM.and Intel's dominance, until these issues are properly and OPENLY acknowledged and discussed [without imposition from "authority"]

That means engaging in feedback, asking *questions* that allows for openings, *always* assuming good faith, accepting constructive criticism at face value, and *saying sorry and thank you* when it is given.

These are really basic and fundamental community interaction rules, which nobody should feel are ever in doubt, or be described under such blatantly disrespectful and outright dismissive phrases such as "tone policing".

I should not have to repeat these words again, response-team. It would go a long way towards repairing the enormous damage going back well over four years (long before I was around) if you could acknowledge the above and indicate that it has been finally heard and that action is being taken.

Best,

L.

[Dennis Clarke]

> Now, as someone who is entirely independent...

I am someone with about forty years in the computer industry at various
levels. I have been quietly watching this maillist for some time. I do
not want to say that it is comedy at best and tragedy at worst. However
I feel that the message and intent have been lost. People such as myself
may feel no desire to participate in spite of the fact that RISC-V is
one of the most fascinating technologies to have arrived in a very long
time. I actually have the RISC-V Instruction Set Manual printed out and
in a three ring binder at my desk. I read it. I have a SiFive prototype
board. I experiment with it. I have ported FreeBSD over to RISC-V and
make attempts to run it inside a qemu emulator. RISC-V actually does
look like the answer to decades of silicon rot and software stagnation
for the average person.

> This should *already* have been a safe and welcoming environment ...

This mail list delivers the message "do not touch".

I don't have a solution to that. Sorry.

I just wish for a better and more inviting environment.


--
Dennis Clarke
RISC-V/SPARC/PPC/ARM/CISC
UNIX and Linux spoken
GreyBeard and suspenders included

[lkcl]

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 10:38:11 PM UTC+8, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > Now, as someone who is entirely independent...
>
> I am someone with about forty years in the computer industry at various
> levels. I have been quietly watching this maillist for some time. I do
> not want to say that it is comedy at best and tragedy at worst. However
> I feel that the message and intent have been lost.

I gave serious consideration to using MIPS or PowerPC instead. Ironically that would mean changing the domain name and a whole boatload of links.

I said to David Patterson that the goal has been set for the Libre RISCV SoC. I will not repeat publicly his response, it was too shocking.

Things will appear to get worse before they get better, Dennis.

Thanks for sharing.

L.