On 21 Jul 2020, at 12:38, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I am opposed to the use of racially charged language in the software
and
would therefore be opposed to permanent backwards compatibility.
I believe this is a perfectly fine _personal_ stance for you to
have—and which does not have to be shared by others to be valid. FWIW
I applaud your position and your will to act consistently with what you
think is the right thing to do, even if we disagree on what that is. I
also think the course of a project like this should not be set by a
single individual.
It has been made obviously clear that your views on what constitutes
"racially charged" language are not universally shared, without
venturing into "what to do about it" territory. In addition, yesterday,
you also included this fragment in a FAQ of sorts you circulated:
What about rules like URIBL_BLACK?
That is a 3rd party rule. We will discuss with the URIBL team about
their plans [⋯]
Based on context, I think it's more than fair to conclude that you
consider even obviously innocent uses of the word "black" as "racially
charged". Will "latin" as in "Latin-1" come next? What about other
colors such as "brown", "red" and "yellow"?
Recognizing that language is a living thing, will devs embark in a
crusade every time a new term becomes "racially charged", devoting hours
to removing them from the codebase? (Yes, I understand that for most,
this is merely a volunteer role but the question is still relevant
because it is guaranteed to impact speed of improvement and quality for
the project.) Will users continue to be forced to play along?
I believe the PMC should review this situation and take appropriate
action. It seems to me at least, that the assertions sustaining the
decision to drop the terms that you consider "racially charged", are not
holding. I am also afraid of the impact this will have in the support
and adoption of SA.
Best regards
-lem
