On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Matthew Harrigan <harrigan.matt...@gmail.com > wrote:
> 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. > I think the authors were explicitly using a stronger word: diversity is not jstu welcome, it is more than welcome -- it is honored -- that is, it's a good thing that we explicitly want to support. > 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 think that last one is, in fact, the point. Anyway, I for one think it's fine either way, but would suggest that any minor changes like this be made to the SciPy CoC (of at all), and that numpy uses the same one. -CHB -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (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
