[Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Robert Kern]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:04 AM Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20180802/6c6de462/attachment-0001.html>