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;
Date:   Wed, 17 Oct 2018 08:21:02 -0700
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc:     ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        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>
 <CAMuHMdX0G767xYYcd8TDMLBp3cY9+fz_aJFAuz8OxgmCmhbNrg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdX0G767xYYcd8TDMLBp3cY9+fz_aJFAuz8OxgmCmhbNrg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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 <josh@joshtriplett.org> 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".