Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] code-of-conduct: Remove explicit list of discrimination factors
From: Rainer Fiebig
Date: Thu Oct 11 2018 - 04:11:26 EST
Am Mittwoch, 10. Oktober 2018, 15:16:12 schrieb Josh Triplett:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:55:04PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > On 10/07/18 01:51, 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.
> > >
> > > Avoid any ambiguity by removing the list, to ensure "a harassment-free
> > > experience for everyone", period.
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> > > index ab7c24b5478c6b30..e472c9f86ff00b34 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> > > @@ -6,10 +6,7 @@ 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, socio-economic status, nationality,
> > > -personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
> > > +our community a harassment-free experience for everyone.
> > >
> > > Our Standards
> > > =============
> > >
> > The words removed by this patch are a political statement.
> Choosing not to say those words is a political statement.
No. If there's an implicit statement it's "No politics here."
The patch makes the sentence and its message completely neutral. And what can be more inclusive and encompassing than "everyone"?
> See the original commit message for the code of conduct: "Explicit
> guidelines have demonstrated success in other projects and other areas
> of the kernel."
Which does not mean that this is generally true. I guess you know the difference between deduction and induction.
> And see the FAQ entry at https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq for
> "The Contributor Covenant explicitly lists a set of protected classes;
"protected classes" is imo very unfortunate wording and very close to "privileged classes". I bet this won't go down well with lots of people, especially in the eastern hemisphere.
Reminds me of "All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others."
History has shown were this leads to.
> does this make it acceptable to discriminate or make others feel
> unwelcome based on other factors?" (I wrote that FAQ entry and submitted
> it upstream, where it was enthusiastically merged.)
Not really surprising.
The truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought.