On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 3:04 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Stefan van der Walt > <stef...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > > On August 3, 2018 09:50:38 Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:01 PM Robert Kern <robert.k...@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
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
