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 DBAA53492 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 16:00:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay1-d.mail.gandi.net (relay1-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50F2E709 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 16:00:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 09:00:36 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: James Bottomley Message-ID: <20181017160036.GA18198@localhost> References: <20181017071902.30102-1-geert@linux-m68k.org> <20181017091325.GA15991@localhost> <20181017152101.GA17531@localhost> <1539791355.3769.35.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1539791355.3769.35.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Cc: 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 08:49:15AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 08:21 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > 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. > > Actually, that's not a good thing to do in a vacuum: you have to be > really careful about how you do this from a legal point of view. The > argument over whether enumerating specific rights or classes disparages > others has been going on for centuries. To give you an example of how > far back it goes: it's the reason for the ninth amendment to the US > constitution. > > The commonly accepted legal way of doing this today is the statement > > "examples of X include but are not limited to: ..." > > which is thought to work in most jurisdictions and is what you'll find > in all US corporate codes of conduct or ethics. Which is a much better proposal than removing the list entirely.