From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> To: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, tomi.valkeinen@iki.fi Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] code-of-conduct: Remove explicit list of discrimination factors Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:36:45 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20181017183645.GF24097@sirena.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20181017152101.GA17531@localhost> [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1601 bytes --] 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 <josh@joshtriplett.org> 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. [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> To: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, tomi.valkeinen@iki.fi Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] code-of-conduct: Remove explicit list of discrimination factors Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:36:45 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20181017183645.GF24097@sirena.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20181017152101.GA17531@localhost> [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1601 bytes --] 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 <josh@joshtriplett.org> 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. [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-17 18:36 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-10-17 7:19 [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] code-of-conduct: Remove explicit list of discrimination factors Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-17 7:19 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-17 9:13 ` [Ksummit-discuss] " Josh Triplett 2018-10-17 9:13 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-17 9:31 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-17 9:31 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-17 13:32 ` Guenter Roeck 2018-10-17 15:22 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-17 15:22 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-17 15:21 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-17 15:21 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-17 15:49 ` James Bottomley 2018-10-17 16:00 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-17 16:00 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-17 18:36 ` Mark Brown [this message] 2018-10-17 18:36 ` Mark Brown 2018-10-17 13:45 ` Guenter Roeck 2018-10-17 16:18 ` Joe Perches 2018-10-22 21:06 ` Pavel Machek 2018-10-22 21:06 ` Pavel Machek -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2018-10-07 8:51 [Ksummit-discuss] " Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-07 11:35 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-07 11:35 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-07 17:18 ` Laurent Pinchart 2018-10-07 17:18 ` Laurent Pinchart 2018-10-08 2:29 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-08 2:29 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-08 14:12 ` Tim.Bird 2018-10-08 14:12 ` Tim.Bird 2018-10-08 14:27 ` Laurent Pinchart 2018-10-08 14:27 ` Laurent Pinchart 2018-10-08 14:36 ` Tim.Bird 2018-10-08 14:36 ` Tim.Bird 2018-10-08 14:30 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-08 14:30 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-08 15:43 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-08 15:43 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-08 8:55 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-08 8:55 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2018-10-08 12:02 ` Mark Brown 2018-10-08 12:02 ` Mark Brown 2018-10-08 15:42 ` Alan Cox 2018-10-08 15:42 ` Alan Cox 2018-10-08 16:14 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-08 16:14 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-10 20:55 ` Frank Rowand 2018-10-10 21:15 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2018-10-10 21:15 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2018-10-10 22:16 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-10 22:16 ` Josh Triplett 2018-10-10 22:33 ` Eric S. Raymond 2018-10-10 23:35 ` Frank Rowand 2018-10-11 8:12 ` Rainer Fiebig
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20181017183645.GF24097@sirena.org.uk \ --to=broonie@kernel.org \ --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \ --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \ --cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=tomi.valkeinen@iki.fi \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.