Hi, It would be nice to have priorities of terms. Like 'master' may have low importance, and some other words do not. High-priority words can be listed at the top as red and low priorities as yellow.
Kind Regards, Furkan KAMACI On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 5:46 AM William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > It could be also nice to whitelist a phrase, such as "Foo Master" but still > be alerted to other occurences of "Master". > > That would solve their 80/20 (maybe 95/5 in this case.) > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021, 19:48 Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Christofer, > > > > I don't know plc4x well, but have some generic ideas. > > > > You cannot unilaterally change what you depend on but you can control how > > users see your interface. So your interface could use inclusive words > like > > primary/secondary and the interface maps these terms into the underlying > > APIs that might use non-inclusive words. > > > > Perhaps you are already doing this anyway. But if you are required to use > > terms that are part of the underlying APIs you can "ignore" them in the > CLC > > tool. > > > > So the tool can still be useful in highlighting your API's use of the > > terms. > > > > Is there any point in raising these questions to "industry standards" > > groups that your underlying platforms are members of? > > > > HTH, > > Craig > > > > > On Sep 9, 2021, at 1:03 PM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I just took the question about the CLC to the PLC4X project. There we > > very quickly noticed that we would be stuck in a dilemma: > > > > > > We're implementing drivers for protocols that use pretty un-inclusive > > terms ... A Modbus Master is simply called that, same as A Modbus Slave. > A > > PROFINET Master also simply is called that way. We could now decide to > call > > it something different, but that would definitiely confuse people. > > > > > > What are your thoughts on this? > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > > Von: Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. September 2021 14:40 > > > An: dev@diversity.apache.org; Łukasz Dywicki <l...@code-house.org>; > > priv...@karaf.apache.org > > > Betreff: Re: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/5/21 6:03 PM, Łukasz Dywicki wrote: > > >> My feeling is close to Christian's in this regard. > > >> > > >> Writing docs is usually harder than writing code, especially for for > > >> non-native speakers. Similar thing applies to non-native readers of > it. > > >> Try writing up a piece of PKI description without using "Alice and > Bob" > > >> and correlated his/her phrases. > > >> > > >> While I understand that many society groups been going through various > > >> troubles now and in the past, I do believe that changing of vocabulary > > >> will simply not fix their issues. To be fair I don't know how to write > > >> that to not step on somebody's else sensitive toe. > > > > > > You'll get no disagreement from me on that - anyone who thinks that > > changing vocabulary will fix everything is fooling themselves. Nope, this > > is one step out of many. But it's an important step, because it causes us > > to *think* about how words affect others. And that, in my experience, > leads > > us to think about how *everything* affects others. > > > Compassion and empathy start with small gestures. Small steps become > > larger steps. Thinking that the small step is the entire solution is a > > mistake. Worse yet, deciding not to take the small step because it's not > > the entire solution, causes the larger steps to never be considered. > > > > > >> On 02.09.2021 20:18, Christian Schneider wrote: > > >>> When there is a list of "bad" words and a tool that highlights them > > >>> then this is exactly how it feels. > > >>> > > >>> Christian > > >>> > > >>> Am Do., 2. Sept. 2021 um 20:05 Uhr schrieb Rich Bowen < > > rbo...@rcbowen.com>: > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On 9/2/21 1:52 PM, Christian Schneider wrote: > > >>>>> I do not like this effort. Banning words and pointing them out is > > >>>>> the > > >>>> wrong > > >>>>> way to achieve an inclusive environment. > > >>>>> Also I think words like he or she must not be banned. They are > > >>>>> neutral words that are totally acceptable in many cases. > > >>>>> Avoiding them in most documentation might be fine but having them > > >>>>> on a > > >>>> bad > > >>>>> word list feels extremely wrong to me. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> In our well meant effort to be woke we sometimes go too far. > > >>>> > > >>>> You have misunderstood this initiative. Nothing is banned, > > >>>> forbidden, struck from the language, or otherwise removed from use. > > >>>> > > >>>> If you agree that avoiding these words in documentation might be > > >>>> fine, then we're on the same page. > > >>>> > > >>>> Please don't make this into something it's not. Nobody has the > > >>>> authority, or even the desire, to forbid you using certain words. > > >>>> This tool is only intended to point out places where there *might* > > >>>> be a better word choice. > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com > > >>>> @rbowen > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > -- > > > Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com > > > @rbowen > > > > Craig L Russell > > c...@apache.org > > > > >
