On 9/9/21 4:03 PM, Christofer Dutz 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?
When this has been discussed at InclusiveNaming.org, the response has
been generally pragmatic - change what you can, don't sweat what you
can't, unless you have influence over the standards/protocol committee.
And we all know how slowly standards definitions change.
Some projects have adopted "local" naming, and have wrappers around
whatever upstream libraries/standards are implemented. That does indeed
tend to cause confusion at some level, whether it's the end users or the
implementers. I don't have a lot of anecdotal evidence about what has
worked or not in those cases.
-----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
--
Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com
@rbowen
