> On Jun 5, 2020, at 12:45 PM, Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 17:10:05 +0000
> "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wi...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd propose instead leader lcore - there is this idea that the leader
>>>>> is still a member of the team and will participate in the work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Leader / worker?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I personally doubt such changes are needed at all.
>>>> Code churn will be massive for both DPDK itself and related user projects.
>>>> With no real gain in return, from my perspective.
>>>> Konstantin
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your concern is valid but the issue does need to be addressed.
>>> If now when? This is as a good a time as any to do it.
>>>
>>> Increasing diversity and inclusion is an overarching goal of many
>>> organizations
>>> include my employer(Microsoft), the parent organization of DPDK(LF)
>>> and my values.
>>>
>>> Following values is more important than minor replacement of text in API.
>>
>> I feel like Konstantin is correct here.
>>
>> If we were using these terms for humans or groups of humans, then I would
>> agree they should be changed. We need to take into account the context of
>> the reference to these words. I agree some words should never be used in any
>> context, but these terms are very reasonable in the context of DPDK and
>> networking.
>
> Have to disagree, the words matter. This has been discussed many times.
> Please look at the footnotes from the Gnome post
>
>
> [0] -
> <https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mjw/Language/NonSexist/vuw.non-sexist-language-guidelines.txt>,
> <https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/933011085594066944>
>
> [1] - <https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692>
> [2] - <https://bugs.python.org/issue34605>
>
> [3] - <https://github.com/rust-lang-deprecated/rust-buildbot/issues/2>,
> <https://github.com/rust-community/foss-events-planner/issues/58>
>
> [4] - <https://twitter.com/ISCdotORG/status/942815837299253248>
> [5] - <https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/geary/issues/324>
You chopped off my last sentence in your reply.
"If everyone wants to accept the code churn (and it will effect a large number
of applications, plus back porting will be more difficult IMO), then we can do
it."
So to be clear, I am not opposed to making this change, but wanted to point out
the technical impacts of this change to DPDK as a whole.
