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 11C61357C for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 18:36:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from heliosphere.sirena.org.uk (heliosphere.sirena.org.uk [172.104.155.198]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63856712 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 18:36:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:36:45 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Josh Triplett Message-ID: <20181017183645.GF24097@sirena.org.uk> References: <20181017071902.30102-1-geert@linux-m68k.org> <20181017091325.GA15991@localhost> <20181017152101.GA17531@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qp4W5+cUSnZs0RIF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181017152101.GA17531@localhost> 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: , --qp4W5+cUSnZs0RIF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 08:21:02AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:31:35AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:13 AM Josh Triplett wrote: > > > 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. I have heard some complaints that the strong push to include these lists has ended up devaluing them, it becomes hard for people to tell if the list is just a cut'n'paste job or if the people responsible for the code of conduct really understand the issues affecting the groups they include and it can be extra disappointing if there are problems. I particularly remember a friend of mine getting into an argument with a conference being hosted somewhere where being gay was a capital offence questioning the inclusion of sexuality on their list, it seemed fairly clear that the organizers meant well and were trying to do the right thing but weren't really aware. This doesn't mean don't try but it's definitely a factor to consider, especially when using an off the shelf code of conduct - there's just never going to be a single right answer with a lot of this stuff. --qp4W5+cUSnZs0RIF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAlvHgTwACgkQJNaLcl1U h9Bniwf+LC4ISLfH5qYEub4eZn4WnzXcdKyuXubvVrA1ngv4B3aYC+LDhhkPGuxG QT34pKccnfWP1xlHzfX06HjzUauAn7U1V2tDolk/jTvPUDEsbLCwNxYP8PX7ZdUc CMXlDCBucc3tklmb8U+gq9EN2Yd01BSBDf8El9zx6hbLlRFvbszVlMRTl4AO3l/i qyefsKEJF3cqS1ZzKDxeGijUkzpCOjEEJVRnCq0wSrMTsoeLZotTw/5fngWxmkl7 slBVNhj1+Jc8edmlsoj6rbxMkkgdCAOoXYW7nUWfgrkNx6KMkOvq2Q4k8Z0Iwwp9 sujylZGyuoe5cBNVVOG4b60MwNyL1A== =9Rke -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qp4W5+cUSnZs0RIF--