From the discussion of the PR: > A protected class is a group of people that has been historically discriminated or a group of people we (as humanity) want to

From the discussion of the PR: > 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. > Members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class because they financially contribute to the cause. I don't want to debate the race/gender stuff as it's pointless, but "member of board of director of big corporations" is a protected class? Has this always been a thing that I wasn't aware of? This doesn't seem to be a joke, although it sounds like one. By the same person: > if they are not a protected class, they will lose that right, yes. That's California Core Corporate Policies in work. And we enacted them. What's going on here? Why is Ruby adopting the "California Core Corporate Policies"? Again by the same person: > That's common sense. We all know who are protected classes. For instance, members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class. That might be just me but I feel like something sinister is happening. Open source, adopting guidelines to protect "members of board of directors of the big corporations"? I'm not trying to say that these people are bad, but do they really need protection on the same level as gender/race minorities? Why is the discourse centered around one specific Californian policy? What incidents are they preventing by adopting these rules? Stuff like the recent criticism of Amazon for trying to "take over" Rust? Again, that might be paranoia on my part, but this sounds fishy. Edit: okay, it seem that this guy was trolling. Funny that he's trolling in the discussion but still got changes in because they were considered good. That's a beautiful way to demonstrate what actually matters