On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:04 AM Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was opposed to having a list in the first place, because the longer such > a list is, the more significant the omissions become. And indeed, the > arguments I have seen for omitting "politics" are that one should be > allowed to discriminate on the basis of politics, because, reasons. > I don't think that's quite fair; I think Nathaniel's example, at least, was relatively clear, but let me see if I can summarize concisely (it's not my strength, as these parentheticals attest, but let's give it a whirl regardless). The main purpose of diversity statements is to signal that we will make a special effort to ensure that the less powerful, more vulnerable, or simply traditionally excluded are able to participate fully, safely, and comfortably. At the same time, we are not trying to exclude the more powerful, less vulnerable, or traditionally included that are already there; they just don't need the extra effort. So diversity statements end up more or less facially neutral. Bad actors sometimes take advantage of that facial neutrality, under the guise of "viewpoint diversity" or similar claims, in bad faith, to make use of the community's platform to reinforce or reassert the traditional structures that make the community less welcoming to the less powerful, more vulnerable, and traditionally excluded individuals. Sometimes the community is well-meaning and being taken advantage of by the individual bad actor, but sometimes the community itself is exercising bad faith. Sometimes the community wants the public cover of a diversity statement in name only but continue to be unwelcoming, using the facial neutrality of the diversity statement ot undermine the diversity goals. "Political belief", like "viewpoint diversity", is one of those common weak points that are exploited by these bad actors. Those bad-faith actors and bad-faith communities are not theoretical; we have examples. By including "political belief" in that list, we look like we might possibly be one of those bad-faith communities. The less powerful, more vulnerable, and traditionally excluded individuals may rightly want more of a commitment from us that they would be truly be supported, protected, and welcomed here. <looks back> Nope, concision is definitely not my strength. But I hope I made the argument clear, at least. Now, I'm not particularly in favor of just dropping "political belief" from the CoC. I think the concerns are valid, but I think that those concerns expose a structural weakness in the CoC that is better addressed with other statements about how we deal with bad actors. "Political belief" isn't the only exploitable item in that list, and "political belief" is also an axis along which less powerful, etc. such that I think it's worth keeping on the list as a reminder. Removing the list entirely for a "we welcome everyone" message is also exploitable, as bad-faith actors will just read in whatever they feel like they need. Personally, I view the list best as not defining a legalistic set of protected classes, but rather as a helpful set of examples for community members to keep in mind as they interact with the community. This is why I don't like a simple "follow the Golden Rule" or "Don't be a dick". It gives absolutely no guidance to the reader. Everyone is a good person in their own head. Telling them to be a good person doesn't give them any tools to be better at welcoming a broader diversity in our community. They will read that and carry on with their own personal status quo with no more reflection. And this requires reflection and work. -- Robert Kern
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion