Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] code-of-conduct: Remove explicit list
 of discrimination factors
To:     esr@thyrsus.com, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20181007085102.17795-1-geert@linux-m68k.org>
 <f4f7bf39-af34-4375-d6a2-b1f23cad519e@gmail.com>
 <20181010221611.GA5711@localhost> <20181010223319.GA31256@thyrsus.com>
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <22aae042-5ef3-20df-6960-fc8ae3cd5506@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:35:58 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181010223319.GA31256@thyrsus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 10/10/18 15:33, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>:
>>> The words removed by this patch are a political statement.
>>
>> Choosing not to say those words is a political statement.
> 
> The situation is not symmetrical.  Choosing the protected classes
> in the CoC is a *change* in its implied politics. 
> 
> It's a change that is, obviously from LKML traffic, very contentious.
> If this were a tpurely technical matter, it would be described as
> not backwards-compatible.
> 
> It's a change that, I submit, should not have been made without a clear
> consensus *in favor* of the change.
> 
> Our culture has a process for this. It's called RFCs. If we want to
> designate protected classes to be called out in conductt guidelines,
> an RFC should be floated first and the change should be made only
> if rough consensus has been achieved.
> 

Thank you for stating that clearly and concisely Eric.

I will bow out of further discussion on this specific point as I
have already seen this concept discussed on many threads already
in recent weeks.

-Frank