Diversity on the governance teams

There is no “injustice” done by rephrasing an example. This is just a phrasing to make the documentation a little bit friendlier to a wider audience.

It is, however, awkward and somewhat misleading to rephrase a direct quotation without marking the edits; and there isn’t actually a particularly good reason to choose this particular quotation, as it is neither the original statement of the problem, nor a particularly good one. I’ve submitted a pull request that eliminates the quotation entirely, using an original phrasing of the problem, and making the rest of chapter match that phrasing, eliminating a few other awkward pieces: the switch from numbered philosophers to named philosophers, and the switch from male (or female after the pull request) pronouns in the formulation of the problem to singular “they” throughout the rest, preferring instead the appropriate pronouns when discussing specific philosophers, or singular “they” when discussing an unspecified philosopher.

I think that this phrasing should improve the text overall, without introducing problems of editing a direct quotation.

5 Likes