"Protected class" means stuff like race, sex or veteran status. So if you harass a random conference-goer at a Ruby-focused event, that cannot be addressed under the CoC because you haven't evidenced harassment towards a protected class as a whole (e.g. all veterans)? How does that even make sense?
> “Protected class” means stuff like race, sex or veteran status.
“Protected class” is an (American) legal term, with situation-specific definitions. (It means different things in federal employment law, federal public accommodation law, federal fair housing law, and the various states employment, public accommodation, and fair housing laws of each of the States.)
It is entirely unclear what it means in the Ruby CoC, and the explanation in the discussion thread is literally “everyone knows what ‘protected class’ means” which is obviously entirely false. Its a term used by someone who has some overly precise, overly generalized idea of what it means, doesn’t realize that they are wrong, and thinks everyone agrees with them.
It boggles the mind that people could actually think its obvious what behaviour is unfair discrimination and what isn't. Like have they never opened a history book? Or noticed the countless lawsuits on the subject? (I think usa has a sort of arbitrary enumerated list, but canada doesn't explicitly enumerate so there's fun court cases over things like do drug laws discriminate against people who enjoy the taste of marijuana, etc)
No one supported hmdne's claim everyone knows what protected classes are.
Jacob Herrington encouraged hmdne to make another PR mostly. Consider he recognized hmdne was trying to derail his PR. And he said he'd be in support of finding a better way to communicate the spirit of tolerance and mutual respect. Not removing that part.
Matz approved both PRs. But it isn't clear he read the discussion.
> @Try2Code A protected class is a group of people that has been historically discriminated or a group of people we (as humanity) want to privilege to offset the years of discrimination - but that's not all. For example the People of Color are a protected class, because of slavery. Members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class because they financially contribute to the cause. The non-heterosexuals are a protected class, because of discrimination. Women are a protected class obviously. I don't know how to better define it. The dictionaries should have a more understandable definition.
Side note: anyone follow what this means? “Members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class because they financially contribute to the cause.”?
"group of people we (as humanity) want to privilege to offset the years of discrimination" -->the humanity part is the part that have a problem with tbh (explanation below)
The "(as humanity)" should be removed. A protected class in US/UK might of been the oppresor in other countries. Example below.
Romania and Bulgaria have been invaded countless times by the ottoman empire for hundreds of years. Why would a romanian or bulgarian even consider protecting them(muslims)? Black were part of that same force(and high ranking officials) that pillaged the 2 countries. Why would eastern europeans even owe them anything?
EDIT: As an eastern European I don't ower any of them any protection. If anything those 2 classes owe us according to historical facts.
Honest question - are young or old also a protected class? I disagree that CoC clauses should be based on protected classes only, because I think there are possible types of discrimination that should be addressed in CoC.
In a legal context, yes, age is a protected class. So if past practice is anything to go with, I guess quips like "ok boomer" will now be officially verboten on the Ruby mailing lists and in Ruby events.
It’s legally OK to discriminate based on a minimum age, but not a maximum age. No voting, alcohol, tobacco, driving, guns, executing contracts, renting a car etc. until 18/21/25.
Interesting, that "Age (over 40)" are cited as "Protected class". So people over 40, which feel harassed by many of these "new rules" can actually do something about it?
I think anyone can report anything they don't like.
It's more that insults against people over 40 (or that reference people over 40) will be taken seriously, where as insults against/referencing 20 year olds apparently won't be.
So, I'm assuming "ok boomer" would not be OK, but "ok junior" would be.
From reading the comments, it sounds like it's actually self-described "non-protected" folks that are proposing these rules. And the incident started with some male developers getting upset about a joke/insult about females.
The line about protected classes is not in addition to a general rule against harassment, or emphasizing that kind of harassment in particular, it replaced that rule.
There is a separate rule against personal attacks, but is that rule supposed to take over harassment in general? That sort of makes sense in a vacuum, but then it leaves the exact meaning of the 'harassment against protected classes' rule kind of confusing. What does harassing a class mean exactly, and can you harass a non-protected class?
