> > It's also key to note the specific phrasing -- it is *diversity* that is > honored, whereas we would (and do) welcome diverse individuals. >
I'm afraid I miss your point. I understand that diversity is what is being honoured in the current CoC, and that is my central issue. My issue is not so much diversity, but more that honour is not the right word. We all agree (I think/hope) that we should and do welcome diverse individuals. That actually paraphrases my suggested edit: Though no list can hope to be comprehensive, we explicitly *welcome* diversity in: age, culture, ethnicity, genotype, gender identity or expression, language, national origin, neurotype, phenotype, political beliefs, profession, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, subculture and technical ability. Practically speaking I don't think my edit means much. I can't think of a situation where someone is friendly, welcoming, and respectful to everyone yet should be referred referred to CoC committee for failing to honour diversity. One goal of the CoC should be to make sure that diverse people from potentially marginalized or targeted groups feel welcome and my edit addresses that more directly than the original. But in principle the difference, to me at least, is stark. Thank you for considering my view. On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > > On August 4, 2018 00:23:44 Matthew Harrigan <harrigan.matt...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> One concern I have is the phrase "explicitly honour" in "we explicitly >>> honour diversity in: age, culture, ...". Honour is a curious word choice. >>> honour <https://www.dictionary.com/browse/honour> is defined as, among >>> other things, "to worship", "high public esteem; fame; glory", and "a >>> source of credit or distinction". I would object to some of those >>> interpretations. Also its not clear to me how honouring diversity relates >>> to conduct. I would definitely agree to follow the other parts of the >>> CoC and also to welcome others regardless of where they fall on the various >>> axes of diversity. "Explicitly welcome" is better and much more closely >>> related to conduct IMO. >>> >> >> While honor may be a slightly strange choice, I don't think it is as >> strange as this specific definition makes it out to be. You also say "I >> honor my promise", i.e., I take it seriously, and it has meaning to me. >> >> Diversity has meaning to our community (it enriches us, both >> intellectually and otherwise) and should be cherished. >> > > It's also key to note the specific phrasing -- it is *diversity* that is > honored, whereas we would (and do) welcome diverse individuals. > > So I like the phasing as it is. > > -CHB > > -- > > Christopher Barker, Ph.D. > Oceanographer > > Emergency Response Division > NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice > 7600 Sand Point Way NE > <https://maps.google.com/?q=7600+Sand+Point+Way+NE&entry=gmail&source=g> > (206) 526-6329 fax > Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception > > chris.bar...@noaa.gov >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
