On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 12:53:00PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 12:05 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 10:32:57AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > Providing an explicit list of discrimination factors may give the false > > > impression that discrimination based on other unlisted factors would be > > > allowed. > > > > > > Furthermore, this list is already overly long, polarizing, > > > politically-laden, and reinstating the concept of human races. > > > None of these is related to the goals of the Linux kernel project. > > > > > > Avoid any ambiguity or political undertone by removing the list, to > > > ensure "a harassment-free experience for everyone", period. > > > > I understand the reason you and others are proposing this change, > > however for now, let us stick with the text that we have. As Linus and > > I said just over a month ago, let's sit with the text we have until > > something comes up that requires a change to happen. > > > > Also, I recommend you work with the upstream developers of this text to > > see if they agree with your changes here. If they do, and update their > > version, I will be glad to revisit this text at that time. > > I did, cfr. https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/610 > > The official response was: > > "I'm not going to make this change to the Contributor Covenant itself, > since I believe that explicitly listing examples of protected classes is > important. However, any adopting project is free to modify the document > according to the license." I figured. As I said, some people feel that the list is good to have, if not essential. So let's stick with it for now. thanks, greg k-h
