On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 08:49:15AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 08:21 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > People in underrepresented and commonly marginalized groups, > > especially those more commonly overlooked, don't always know if a > > given group has taken their particular group into account or given > > any thought to it. Explicit inclusion helps, and this is a standard > > guideline often cited for good codes of conduct. > > Actually, that's not a good thing to do in a vacuum: you have to be > really careful about how you do this from a legal point of view. The > argument over whether enumerating specific rights or classes disparages > others has been going on for centuries. To give you an example of how > far back it goes: it's the reason for the ninth amendment to the US > constitution. > > The commonly accepted legal way of doing this today is the statement > > "examples of X include but are not limited to: ..." > > which is thought to work in most jurisdictions and is what you'll find > in all US corporate codes of conduct or ethics.
Which is a much better proposal than removing the list entirely.
