[Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct (original) (raw)

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris at gmail.com
Fri Aug 3 09:49:23 EDT 2018

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 3:04 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Stefan van der Walt <stefanv at berkeley.edu> wrote: > On August 3, 2018 09:50:38 Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:01 PM Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Nope, concision is definitely not my strength. But I hope I >>> made the argument clear, at least. >> >> >> No, wait. I got it: >> >> Bad actors use "diversity of political beliefs" in bad faith as cover for >> undermining the goals of the diversity statement. Marginalized groups want >> more assurance that our community (1) isn't one of those bad actors and (2) >> is willing and capable of resisting those bad actors when they come. > > > That's a very useful summary; thank you. > > I think we can fairly easily add a sentence that encourages participation > from a wide diversity of people, while making it clear that including > someone in the conversation does not give them free reigns in contradiction > with the rest of the guidelines. > > Ralf, if you agree, shall we do this for SciPy, and use the new version for > NumPy too? I must say, I disagree. I think we're already treading close to the edge with the current document, and it's more likely we'd get closer still with virtually any addition on this line. I'm in favor of keeping the political beliefs in there, on the basis it's really not too hard to distinguish good-faith political beliefs, and the current atmosphere is so repellent to people who would not identify as progressive, that I would like them to feel they have some protection. If you will not allow me "no change" and you offered me a) paragraph by group of the not-discriminated trying to imagine something comforting to imagined extremely sensitive and progressive (name your other group here) or b) no stated defense for not-progressive persons, I'd take b). I propose that we accept the CoC as is. It seems fine to me and there seems to be general support for it.

Chuck -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20180803/61ceb1c1/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list