On 21 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 7/21/2020 8:14 PM, Luis E. Muñoz wrote:
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".
No, that's simplistic and no one on this project is simple. We'll
handle issues on a case-by-case basis.
This is at least, troublesome and underscores one of my fears – that
this will repeat over and over as new terms are found to be "racially
charged" by some group.
I hope that with
whitelist/blacklist & master/slave, we have identified the racially
charged language in our project. If you know of any others, please
speak up as it will help the process to be smoother.
The words you have listed are arbitrary – in the sense that were
selected by a specific, "case by case" if you will, criteria. In the
questions from my message that you elided, there were a few examples
– various colors and "latin". Those examples are apropos to your
comment on URIBL_BLACK.
There was also mention to the terms "Apache" and "Assassin" in the
earlier threads – if anything, to me the word Assassin is more
concerning than the term blacklist – yet you won't hear me forcing
others to rename their software.
will devs embark in a crusade every time a new term becomes "racially
charged", devoting hours to removing them from the codebase?
As a foundation that does not pay for code, what a dev devotes their
time to handling is not something we choose.
Of course, and I acknowledged that rather openly in my response. Part of
the sentiment on the threads about this topic are related with the way
in which the changes are being implemented and the impact to the users.
Beyond that, those who have earned merit on the project control the
project. That is the PMC and they have voted on this change.
Sure, I accept that. The point I was trying to make is that you are
forcing a change to happen in a way that impacts users
disproportionally. The refusal to make the changes in a branch, and
then, the failure to acknowledge the need for a long-term "compatibility
mode" are IMO short-sighted. The conflating of your personal beliefs and
project goals also speaks volumes about the lack of accountability and
direction at play here.
The ASF
is a meritocracy and those who have no merit do not get a vote. I
have
earned merit and have a vote. I have exercised it and the change
represents a We not an I.
Thank you for the explanation – I already inferred the above from the
threads about this issue in which I've participated, just as I've
inferred that the way in which the change is being implemented is
unlikely to closely match the details under which said vote was cast.
Reminds me of Brexit.
I am also afraid of the impact this will have in the support and
adoption of SA.
I'm not afraid of the support or adoption. There are numerous
products
and companies in the ecosystem that will be supporting the change and
they represent a statistically substantial portion of the users.
I commend you in your ability to see into the future. I lack that
ability, but I think I have a more pragmatic position.
For many users, installing SpamAssassin is simply running a command on
their systems, that they perhaps have written down in a cheat sheet. If
they install and the software fails, I suspect that some of them will
simply uninstall and try the next option. That results in one less user.
For entities or organizations that have invested time and resources
learning the software, this might not be a deal breaker – depending
on the amount of breakage that the implementation of changes will bring.
At some point, they will get tired of addressing these issues and will
either fork or abandon.
None of these scenarios lead to more users. In the absolute best case,
you will have the same user base, all things being equal. And in all
cases, the users will have to change something that has been working
like it is for years and was not broken to begin with.
Don't let a vocal minority drive change. To paraphrase Henry Ford,
if you
asked people what they want in a car, they'd have said a faster horse.
You choice of source for that quote strikes me as ironic for this
discussion :-)
I do not know where are you getting your data to claim which side of the
argument – and there are more than two – is bigger. But this is
beside the point because evidently this is not a democratic decision,
but a meritocratic one.
Your vote – the vote of the PMC – outweighs that of the users, and
that is clear. I suspect the PMC is forgetting the importance of its
user base, but that is a discussion for another forum. I suppose the PMC
reads this and in choosing to remain anonymous / silent on this matter,
is allowing every participant to form their own opinion on their
motivations.
I guess we'll see what happens.
Best regards
-lem
