[Numpy-discussion] Adoption of a Code of Conduct

[Charles R Harris]

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:
> >>>
> >>> <looks back> 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>