Stefano Zacchiroli <lea...@debian.org> writes: > The long list of "features" we do not discriminate upon, in > particular, seems to be contentious. TBH, I don't find it particularly > inspiring either, while the rest of the text is.
Part of the cause of that problem, it seems to me, is that today's common understanding of “discriminate” conflates it with “discriminate on a prejudicial basis”. By making that conflation, we lose the concept of discrimination *without* prejudice <URL:https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/discrimination>, which is the act of perceiving and noting differences which may matter to a decision. This is an essential aspect of making fair decisions: about people, about their past actions, about their present convictions informing their future actions. A diversity statement that rules out this kind of fair discrimination would be harmful to a project, by needlessly hobbling the ability to make necessary decisions fairly. So, while I don't know to what extent that issue is a conscious part of the decisions leading to such diversity statements, it can partly explain why they commonly include an extensive list of descriptors the drafters think are prejudicial as a basis for discrimination. > I also notice that other existing diversity statements in FOSS have > avoided the long list, still managing to be inspiring and straight to > the point. Maybe we could try without such a list? There are some free-software projects with a diversity statement including such a list, but being clear and to the point about what that list means. The diversity statement of the Python Software Foundation <URL:http://www.python.org/community/diversity/> has this relevant text: Although we have phrased the formal diversity statement generically to make it all-inclusive, we recognize that there are specific attributes that are used to discriminate against people. In alphabetical order, some of these attributes include (but are not limited to): age, culture, ethnicity, gender identity or expression, national origin, physical or mental difference, politics, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and subculture. We welcome people regardless of the values of these or other attributes. That avoids the problem I objected to earlier: it makes clear that these are intended to describe attributes of people, specifically as attributes commonly used to (prejudicially) discriminate. That leaves open – correctly, in my view – the entirely fair discrimination on the basis of people's actions, and on the basis of the content of people's expressed opinions (religious convictions, political positions, etc.) when relevant to some decision. It also makes clear that the list is not intended to be exhaustive. -- \ “He who laughs last, thinks slowest.” —anonymous | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney
pgpSWaT6584XX.pgp
Description: PGP signature