I am not a friend of Alan Horkan, nor do I have any association with him
whatsoever, but I find that blocking him from speaking about GIMP's name
is unacceptable. I have looked over some of his past posts and have not
found them to be insulting, abusive, or inappropriate. As a matter of
fact, I think he has (for the most part) politely stated his opinion and
posted in reply to others and not simply in order to keep this topic
going. I would not expect him to drop the topic if people continue to
respond to him and say things that don't make sense to him, I imagine
you would do the same. The topic is clearly of interest to other
people, who have continued the topic as he has. Now it's possible he is
the type of person who is content to argue indefinitely about a topic
without any thought of the consequences, but that is yet to be proven
AND requires the participation of someone else. Alan does not appear to
be a ranter (at least on this list) and he didn't bring it up. In fact
he a useful and frequent contributer who responds to people's questions
in a polite and helpful way.
GIMP was nothing but a name for me for years, until someone mentioned
the "crippled" definition, and I discovered others as well. Gimp's
various definitions are disturbing to me, and the developers are clearly
aware of these definitions as demonstrated by the bug report Alan
referred to (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160890). The
developers are not bothered, apparently, and simply think it's funny.
Is it wrong to suggest that the attitude of the developers is not
totally "the name doesn't have a derogatory meaning to most people and
should therefore stay the same" and that perhaps there is this aspect as
well "who cares about those associations, they are funny and they don't
bother me, why are you making a big deal out of it"?
Now I understand why changing the name at this juncture is not a wise
idea, but I do NOT understand why this discussion is considered
ridiculous nor do I understand why developers attack those who
ultimately suggest that a patch be accepted to allow simple name
changes. You may not like it, but it is not a stupid request.
Personally I distrust extremes, such as "A product name that has any
possible negative meanings should automatically be changed" or the
opposite "Unless it offends the majority of the users (with solid
proof), we should not think of changing a product name" I am leaning
towards a name change myself, and am thinking it's the most productive
thing to do considering the longterm and GIMP's future, but am not
certain about this and respect and understand arguments to the
contrary. The most positive thing I have heard so far is the suggestion
that GIMP will help discourage negative usage of that word, but the
developers (to whom we are all very grateful for their work) don't seem
to be supporting this initiative by the keeping the above mentioned bug
open. How does that make sense?
There is no reason Alan should be blocked, and if you intend to moderate
topics, than ban all messages regarding the topic, not just individuals
who are not being abusive.
Gimp-user mailing list