From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0C5F2F27 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:21:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay10.mail.gandi.net (relay10.mail.gandi.net [217.70.178.230]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06372775 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:21:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 08:21:02 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Geert Uytterhoeven Message-ID: <20181017152101.GA17531@localhost> References: <20181017071902.30102-1-geert@linux-m68k.org> <20181017091325.GA15991@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: James Bottomley , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, tomi.valkeinen@iki.fi Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] code-of-conduct: Remove explicit list of discrimination factors List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 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".