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 09:00:36 -0700
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        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
Message-ID: <20181017160036.GA18198@localhost>
References: <20181017071902.30102-1-geert@linux-m68k.org>
 <20181017091325.GA15991@localhost>
 <CAMuHMdX0G767xYYcd8TDMLBp3cY9+fz_aJFAuz8OxgmCmhbNrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181017152101.GA17531@localhost>
 <1539791355.3769.35.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1539791355.3769.35.camel@HansenPartnership.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 08:49:15AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 08:21 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Actually, that's not a good thing to do in a vacuum: you have to be
> really careful about how you do this from a legal point of view.  The
> argument over whether enumerating specific rights or classes disparages
> others has been going on for centuries.  To give you an example of how
> far back it goes: it's the reason for the ninth amendment to the US
> constitution.
> 
> The commonly accepted legal way of doing this today is the statement
> 
> "examples of X include but are not limited to: ..."
> 
> which is thought to work in most jurisdictions and is what you'll find
> in all US corporate codes of conduct or ethics.

Which is a much better proposal than removing the list entirely.