On Sat, 4 Sept 2021 at 19:30, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 4, 2021, 10:44 sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 4 Sept 2021 at 14:16, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > > > > > While this is absolutely true, our mandate is to grow developer > > communities > > > and the diversity thereof. As such it is that audience - the > > code-readers - > > > which we are primarily concerned with, right? > > > > > > > Is the remit of D&I that narrow? > > > > What about readers of the ASF websites and users of ASF software? > > > > Besides, a potential developer probably starts by reading about some > > ASF software, and studies the user docs before wanting to engage as a > > developer. > > > > Sure. I don't disagree with you.
Glad to hear it. > So what are you suggesting we do differently here, specifically? The analysis output needs to show whether word matches appear in code or elsewhere, and offer the option to suppress code matches. This is because matches in code are likely to be much harder to fix, as well as having less visibility in general. At the moment every match is treated as being of equal importance, when that is clearly not the case. We should be making it easier for projects to fix unnecessary usages of problematic language, so showing all possible matches from the start is not helpful. It should be possible to start with the most likely problematic instances and gradually expand the search. Sebb.
