[Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Matthew Harrigan]

>
> 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.
>

So I'll use the last one, honour = "a source of credit or distinction".
The simplest definition of diversity is a range of different things.  What
is the range?  If it just minimum, i.e. more than one, the honouring
diversity loses its power.  If its up to each individual to decide, then
its just a trivial statement that each person can honour what they want to
honour.  Hypothetically if someone defined gender identification diversity
as only a traditional male and female as decided at birth, that is "a range
of things", but that would be blatantly against the point of the CoC.  An
arbiter to decide the range has another large set of problems.  Its clear
to me at least that it must be a maximal range.  Political diversity now
has obvious issues.  Some political views are abhorrent to me, and a range
of political views that includes them is not at all a source of credit or
distinction to me.  And this problem is broader than just politics.  Back
to gender identification, hypothetically if someone identified as a female
on odd days of the month and male on even days of the month, I would
probably think they are just making a mockery of an important issue and
therefore not believe it to be a source of credit or distinction.  My point
is that no matter what I would welcome them, be respectful, and be
friendly.  That is why i suggested replacing honour with welcome.  Finally
I strongly believe that for CoC's to result in positive change they must be
carefully read and reflected upon.  That was my goal here.  I hope it has
been worth the time.  But if not take comfort that this is my last email on
this topic.

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Chris Barker <chris.barker at noaa.gov> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Matthew Harrigan <
> harrigan.matthew at 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.barker at noaa.gov>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On August 4, 2018 00:23:44 Matthew Harrigan <harrigan.matthew at 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
> <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.Barker at noaa.gov
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20180808/afcbfcb7/attachment-0001.html>