On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Matthew Harrigan 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 On August 4, 2018 00:23:44 Matthew Harrigan 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.Barker@noaa.gov