| 1 |
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:31:01AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> As a semi-professional environment the stuff in that list doesn't |
| 5 |
>> really belong on our media. I don't think the wording as it stands |
| 6 |
>> would justify a ban on sci-biology/anatomy-atlas either. If somebody |
| 7 |
>> can think of a better way to word it so that Gentoo isn't banned at |
| 8 |
>> medical conferences, feel free to propose it. |
| 9 |
> I don't see how my proposal would get us banned at a medical conference, |
| 10 |
> can you clarify? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Sorry, I was referring to the bit about "sexual language and images in |
| 13 |
public spaces." Would it be against policy for me to demonstrate a |
| 14 |
hypothetical human anatomy application under the Gentoo banner at a |
| 15 |
medical conference? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
A bit contrived - I was just musing about Patrick's comment. Talking |
| 18 |
about sexuality or images that are debate-ably "sexual" in nature can |
| 19 |
be done in a completely professional environment. In any case I'm |
| 20 |
pretty sure the intent of the policy is not to ban such activities. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It is the whole "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" business. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
In any case, improvements to the wording are welcome, but at some |
| 25 |
point we have to understand the intent and trust those who will |
| 26 |
enforce it accordingly. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives