Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct
+1 for keeping the same CoC as Scipy, making a new thing just seems a bigger surface area to maintain. Personally I already assumed Scipy's "honour[ing] diversity in..." did not imply any protection of behaviours that violate the CoC *itself*, but if you wanted to be really explicit you could add "to the extent that these do not conflict with this code of conduct." to that line. Best, Peter
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Peter Creasey <p.e.creasey.00@googlemail.com
wrote:
+1 for keeping the same CoC as Scipy, making a new thing just seems a bigger surface area to maintain. Personally I already assumed Scipy's "honour[ing] diversity in..." did not imply any protection of behaviours that violate the CoC *itself*, but if you wanted to be really explicit you could add "to the extent that these do not conflict with this code of conduct." to that line.
I prefer that to the proposed modification, short and sweet. Chuck
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 would object to some of those interpretations. Also its not clear to me how honouring diversity relates to conduct. I would definitely agree to follow the other parts of the CoC and also to welcome others regardless of where they fall on the various axes of diversity. "Explicitly welcome" is better and much more closely related to conduct IMO.
Hi Matthew, On August 4, 2018 00:23:44 Matthew Harrigan <harrigan.matthew@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 is defined as, among other things, "to worship", "high public esteem; fame; glory", and "a source of credit or distinction". I would object to some of those interpretations. Also its not clear to me how honouring diversity relates to conduct. I would definitely agree to follow the other parts of the CoC and also to welcome others regardless of where they fall on the various axes of diversity. "Explicitly welcome" is better and much more closely related to conduct IMO.
While honor may be a slightly strange choice, I don't think it is as strange as this specific definition makes it out to be. You also say "I honor my promise", i.e., I take it seriously, and it has meaning to me. Diversity has meaning to our community (it enriches us, both intellectually and otherwise) and should be cherished. How does honoring diversity relate to the CoC? It is part of the motivation for having a CoC. You cannot build diverse communities without providing a friendly environment for interaction. Best regards, Stéfan
On August 4, 2018 00:23:44 Matthew Harrigan <harrigan.matthew@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 would object to some of those interpretations. Also its not clear to me how honouring diversity relates to conduct. I would definitely agree to follow the other parts of the CoC and also to welcome others regardless of where they fall on the various axes of diversity. "Explicitly welcome" is better and much more closely related to conduct IMO.
While honor may be a slightly strange choice, I don't think it is as strange as this specific definition makes it out to be. You also say "I honor my promise", i.e., I take it seriously, and it has meaning to me.
Diversity has meaning to our community (it enriches us, both intellectually and otherwise) and should be cherished.
It's also key to note the specific phrasing -- it is *diversity* that is honored, whereas we would (and do) welcome diverse individuals. So I like the phasing as it is. -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
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. 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@noaa.gov> wrote:
On August 4, 2018 00:23:44 Matthew Harrigan <harrigan.matthew@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 would object to some of those interpretations. Also its not clear to me how honouring diversity relates to conduct. I would definitely agree to follow the other parts of the CoC and also to welcome others regardless of where they fall on the various axes of diversity. "Explicitly welcome" is better and much more closely related to conduct IMO.
While honor may be a slightly strange choice, I don't think it is as strange as this specific definition makes it out to be. You also say "I honor my promise", i.e., I take it seriously, and it has meaning to me.
Diversity has meaning to our community (it enriches us, both intellectually and otherwise) and should be cherished.
It's also key to note the specific phrasing -- it is *diversity* that is honored, whereas we would (and do) welcome diverse individuals.
So I like the phasing as it is.
-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@noaa.gov
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Matthew Harrigan <harrigan.matthew@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@noaa.gov> wrote:
On August 4, 2018 00:23:44 Matthew Harrigan <harrigan.matthew@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.Barker@noaa.gov
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@noaa.gov> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Matthew Harrigan < harrigan.matthew@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@noaa.gov> wrote:
On August 4, 2018 00:23:44 Matthew Harrigan <harrigan.matthew@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@noaa.gov
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Peter Creasey < p.e.creasey.00@googlemail.com> wrote:
+1 for keeping the same CoC as Scipy, making a new thing just seems a bigger surface area to maintain. Personally I already assumed Scipy's "honour[ing] diversity in..." did not imply any protection of behaviours that violate the CoC *itself*, but if you wanted to be really explicit you could add "to the extent that these do not conflict with this code of conduct." to that line.
I prefer that to the proposed modification, short and sweet.
This edit to the SciPy CoC has now been merged. It looks to me like we're good to go here and take over the SciPy CoC. Cheers, Ralf
+1 Jarrod On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Peter Creasey <p.e.creasey.00@googlemail.com> wrote:
+1 for keeping the same CoC as Scipy, making a new thing just seems a bigger surface area to maintain. Personally I already assumed Scipy's "honour[ing] diversity in..." did not imply any protection of behaviours that violate the CoC *itself*, but if you wanted to be really explicit you could add "to the extent that these do not conflict with this code of conduct." to that line.
I prefer that to the proposed modification, short and sweet.
This edit to the SciPy CoC has now been merged.
It looks to me like we're good to go here and take over the SciPy CoC.
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Charles R Harris < charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Peter Creasey < p.e.creasey.00@googlemail.com> wrote:
+1 for keeping the same CoC as Scipy, making a new thing just seems a bigger surface area to maintain. Personally I already assumed Scipy's "honour[ing] diversity in..." did not imply any protection of behaviours that violate the CoC *itself*, but if you wanted to be really explicit you could add "to the extent that these do not conflict with this code of conduct." to that line.
I prefer that to the proposed modification, short and sweet.
This edit to the SciPy CoC has now been merged.
It looks to me like we're good to go here and take over the SciPy CoC.
+1 Chuck
On August 15, 2018 06:31:08 Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
I prefer that to the proposed modification, short and sweet.
This edit to the SciPy CoC has now been merged.
It looks to me like we're good to go here and take over the SciPy CoC.
+1 Stéfan
On Tue, 2018-08-14 at 21:30 -0700, Ralf Gommers wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Charles R Harris < charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Peter Creasey < p.e.creasey.00@googlemail.com> wrote:
+1 for keeping the same CoC as Scipy, making a new thing just seems a bigger surface area to maintain. Personally I already assumed Scipy's "honour[ing] diversity in..." did not imply any protection of behaviours that violate the CoC *itself*, but if you wanted to be really explicit you could add "to the extent that these do not conflict with this code of conduct." to that line.
I prefer that to the proposed modification, short and sweet.
This edit to the SciPy CoC has now been merged.
It looks to me like we're good to go here and take over the SciPy CoC.
Sounds good, so +1. I am happy with the committee as well, and I guess most/all are, but we might want to discuss it separately? - Sebastian
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:59 PM Sebastian Berg <sebastian@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2018-08-14 at 21:30 -0700, Ralf Gommers wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Charles R Harris < charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Peter Creasey < p.e.creasey.00@googlemail.com> wrote:
+1 for keeping the same CoC as Scipy, making a new thing just seems a bigger surface area to maintain. Personally I already assumed Scipy's "honour[ing] diversity in..." did not imply any protection of behaviours that violate the CoC *itself*, but if you wanted to be really explicit you could add "to the extent that these do not conflict with this code of conduct." to that line.
I prefer that to the proposed modification, short and sweet.
This edit to the SciPy CoC has now been merged.
It looks to me like we're good to go here and take over the SciPy CoC.
Sounds good, so +1.
Added in PR https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/11865.
I am happy with the committee as well, and I guess most/all are, but we might want to discuss it separately?
I just included it in the PR, to get something up finally. If there's any concerns about the commitee or if someone wants to volunteer to be on it, let's discuss it here (or if someone is not comfortable with that, email me or someone else on the Steering Council privately). Cheers, Ralf
participants (8)
-
Charles R Harris -
Chris Barker -
Jarrod Millman -
Matthew Harrigan -
Peter Creasey -
Ralf Gommers -
Sebastian Berg -
Stefan van der Walt