Hi all, I support avoiding the term diversity in the context of this GR for the already mentioned good reasons. However, I would consider "alternative init systems" a better phrase than "multiple init systems" in this context (if that matters from a non-native speaker).
Regards, Micha Am 27. November 2019 18:04:49 MEZ schrieb Matthias Klumpp <m...@debian.org>: >Am Mi., 27. Nov. 2019 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Simon McVittie ><s...@debian.org>: >> >> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 11:27:13 +0000, Chris Lamb wrote: >> > May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity" >> > throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior >to >> > it being subject to a plebiscite? >> >> Thank you for raising this, Chris. > >Yes, thank you so much! This has bothered me for a really long time >and I just never raised it because I thought it would create another >long thread discussing the term itself, derailing the actually >important discussion on the subject matter. However, especially in the >context of a vote, the choice of words and framing drastically changes >how things are perceived. Especially with a term that has a defined >meaning already, or at the very least is loaded with other, >non-technical associations. I don't think using it is neutral, as a >technical vote proposal should be. >I may be in favour of diversity in general, but may still prefer the >technical decision to focus only on one init system. Yet, for some >reason, I would have to vote against "diversity". > >> I agree. I have been uncomfortable with this in the context of "init >> diversity" efforts, but I didn't raise it in the past because I >couldn't >> articulate clearly why I felt that it was a problem. Since it's now >> on-topic, here's my best attempt at that: >> >> The diversity team, and wider efforts around diversity in Debian and >> in software in general, have used "diversity" as a catch-all term for >> personal characteristics of our contributors and community members >when >> discussing inclusion and how we treat people, as a way to avoid >having >> to enumerate specific characteristics (which would tend to lead to >focus >> on those characteristics at the expense of others). >> >> If we use the same word in discussions around technical decisions, >this >> raises some concerns for me. Jokes about the emacs and vi religions >> aside, technical preferences are not really the same thing as the >> characteristics we normally refer to by "diversity". Of course, we >> should treat the people who hold those preferences with respect, but >> that isn't the same as considering implementation of their preference >> to be an ethical imperative for Debian. >> >> To take a deliberately slightly absurd example, preferring Gentoo >over >> Debian is not an inclusion or diversity issue; we welcome >constructive >> contributions to Debian from people who would prefer to be using >Gentoo >> (notably some of our upstreams!), but we do not consider it to be an >> ethical imperative to expand the scope of Debian to encompass >everything >> Gentoo does. >> >> I would hate to see diversity and inclusion of people (the meaning of >> the word used in the name of the Diversity Team) harmed by creating a >> perception that the term "diversity" has been devalued by stretching >> it to encompass technical preferences, because I think diversity and >> inclusion of people is much too important to let that happen. >> >> Conflating diversity of people with diversity of implementation could >> easily also harm our technical decisions, in either direction: >> >> * it could influence technical decisions away from making a choice as >> a project, and towards creating infrastructure to make that choice >on >> individual systems, by developers who do not wish to be perceived >to >> be opposing "diversity" in the interpersonal/Diversity Team sense >of >> the word; >> >> * conversely, it could influence technical decisions *towards* making >a >> choice as a project, and *away from* making that choice on >individual >> systems, by developers who might believe this use of "diversity" is >> disingenuous (even if it was not intended as such). >> >> The extent to which we make choices project-wide, and the amount of >> technical cost we are willing to accept to be able to make those >choices >> onto individual systems, seem like something that we should decide >based >> on their merits. Whatever the result of the imminent vote might be, >> I would like it to be chosen for the right reasons. > >I do not see that using "diversity" as a term in technical discussions >would devalue the diversity efforts of the teams working on it. >However, I do think the points where you see it harm discussions are >very real. If you google "diversity" you can see it is pretty much >exclusively used in social contexts. By bringing it into technical >discussions, a neutral discussion suddenly becomes colored with >emotional opinions and people having to take sides for and against >diversity, instead of just having opinions about a certain subject >matter. And even if one disagrees with this assumption, taking that >risk is just not worth it as there are many other ways to say the same >thing: Just calling this "support for multiple init systems" is very >neutral as well as accurate, so would "Init system variety" be. > >Cheers, > Matthias > >-- >I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/ -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
