From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47FA1ECDE32 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:21:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E514F2151D for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:21:13 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E514F2151D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=joshtriplett.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727497AbeJQXRW (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:17:22 -0400 Received: from relay10.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.178.230]:39671 "EHLO relay10.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727013AbeJQXRW (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:17:22 -0400 Received: from localhost (50-39-174-102.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net [50.39.174.102]) (Authenticated sender: josh@joshtriplett.org) by relay10.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 573AB240007; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:21:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 08:21:02 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , James Bottomley , tomi.valkeinen@iki.fi Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] code-of-conduct: Remove explicit list of discrimination factors 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: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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".