An executive from a pharmacy chain joining Tesla is significantly less relevant to a tech community than one of the highest profile tech executives in history. Not everything is racist, which is what you seem to be implying by highlighting "woman of color".

Parent poster is calmly pointing out HN's long running title policy which is that submitters don't get to fuck about with the title unless it's misleading or clickbait.

Is excluding someone from being mentioned in the same sentence as LE a disservice?

Given the title includes her, I'd like to know what the thought was behind removing her name. I'd be very surprised if it was; 'Larry is bad, so lets not harm people by association'.

Probably along the lines of "Larry is relevant to this community and a controversial figure to boot, so his appointment should be discussed".

Her appointment should also be discussed, given how much of Tesla's bad press has been HR related over the past year. She may prove to be the more important addition.

Independent of the color of the person, OP has actually wanted to highlight that Larry Ellison is on board. OP wanted to highlight the tragedy.

> OP has actually wanted to highlight that Larry Ellison is on board

yes, this is called "Editorializing the title" and is highly discouraged by HN rules.

I am responding to the comment where OP of comment thought there was racial bias. You may be right about Editorializing though.

Implying that op intentionally omitted wilson-thompson rather than highlighted the fact ellison is on the board

    Implying that op intentionally omitted wilson-thompson

If you mean that the alleged "intent" of the OP is political, I don't see how the comment implies that.

To point out that the edited headline no longer includes Kathleen Wilson-Thompson isn't accusatory. It's just a statement of fact. To "exclude" is but the opposite of "include."

> If you mean that the alleged "intent" of the OP is political, I don't see how the comment implies that.

It's pretty obviously the intent. They didn't use the very specific identity of her name, or the more general "other appointee" or any other simple generalization. They specifically pointed out "the woman of color", which pretty clearly shows their intent to be suggesting that she was excluded because of her race and sex. It's the difference between saying "John will be at dinner" and saying "A Muslim will be at dinner". It's intentionally highlighting part of their identity rather than just addressing the specific person.

It's one thing if iandanforth expresses concern about diversity, and something else if he accuses the OP of bigotry. I don't see an accusation. To say it's a shame to leave her out of the title, doesn't imply the OP left her out for nefarious reasons. Ellison is much more famous.