Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Oct 2018 08:21:02 -0700 | From | Josh Triplett <> | Subject | Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] code-of-conduct: Remove explicit list of discrimination factors |
| |
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:31:35AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Josh, > > Thanks for your comments! > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:13 AM Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 09:19:01AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > Providing an explicit list of discrimination factors may give the false > > > impression that discrimination based on other unlisted factors would be > > > allowed. > > > > This impression is, in fact, false, as has already been discussed > > elsewhere. I had hoped that discussion would suffice. > > The CoC FAQ is not part of the CoC, and not part of the Linux kernel.
I wasn't referring just to that; I'm referring to the discussion we've already had on this exact point.
> > refers to. Listing explicit cases to cover does not imply other cases > > are not covered; > > It does, if not accompanied by "examples of...", like in the other sections.
"for everyone, regardless of ..." still says "for everyone", making the "regardless of ..." inherently a non-exhaustive list of factors.
> > it does, however, ensure that the listed cases *are*, > > and helps people know that they're covered. > > So you agree people cannot know if the unlisted cases are covered or not?
People in underrepresented and commonly marginalized groups, especially those more commonly overlooked, don't always know if a given group has taken their particular group into account or given any thought to it. Explicit inclusion helps, and this is a standard guideline often cited for good codes of conduct.
That doesn't make other groups *not* covered. But *if* there is a particular commonly marginalized group that you feel this should *explicitly* cover and doesn't, I'd suggest *adding* that group rather than deleting the existing effort to be explicitly inclusive. (And again, I'd suggest doing so upstream first.)
> > This patch is not OK, and defeats one of the purposes of the original > > change. > > So the purpose of the original change was to list a number of factors, > without saying that it was just a list of examples?
You seem to be actively trying to read something more into what I said. One of the key purposes of the original change was to make the kernel a "a welcoming environment to participate in", and to provide "explicit guidelines".
| |