I think it’s time to move any discussion on the community standards out of this thread (this one might be a better option <https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!topic/julia-users/qUomRDzIRus>) and get back on track.
I believe the last thing that was stated that actually concerned the original topic here, was this: I think in general Julia achieves a good (and difficult) balance between terseness, clarity and consistency. That said, here is an example where it doesn’t: function_name function_module functionloc One could say that “loc” is a very short word (and that it’s clear enough to avoid the longer “location”, that’s fine), so it would be valid to remove the underscore and juxtapose it to “function”, but consistency ends up completely broken then. It’s disturbing to see this happening for one of three functions that form a cohesive set and are even listed consecutively in the official documentation. Please strive to avoid the R (and to some lesser extent, python) naming chaos. Maybe the coding convention rules are not clear enough. True, there will always be a place for subjetivity, but then let’s try to find a rationale for degenerate cases like the above and codify it, or alternatively fix the violations while there is time, in order not to set a bad precedent. I don’t want to exaggerate the importance of naming conventions, but consistency and terseness do reduce cognitive burden and, additionaly, make the language more attractive to newcomers initially affected by the Parkinson law of triviality, and more pleasant for the everday worker that focuses in getting the job done I propose to scan the documentation and spotlight another cases like the above, and try to explain why they are what they are, or what they should be instead. Then we could add the list to an issue and also revisit the naming rules in the face of evidence. I think such an effort would be a step forward - and like with everything else in the OSS community, there's nothing stopping you from filing an issue (or, better yet, a PR!) about it. However, I don't think we need to *first *find all the instances of inconsistent or confusing naming, and *then* start fixing; it's just as good (and probably easier to actually get it done) to fix them one at a time, whenever one is found. This one has been identified - who will file the PR? :) // T On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 9:27:30 AM UTC+2, Stefan Karpinski wrote: A few brief items. > > 1. Try to avoid referring to Julia as "her" in languages where a neutral > pronoun is an option. > > 2. In any language, the combination of "her" + "courting" + "beautiful" > qualifies as sexualization, as do jokes that imply sexual activity with > Julia. Claiming that this is Anglocentric is nonsense: the implication of > sexual activity is conceptual, not a linguistic, and is equally applicable > in any language. I chose the word "sexualize" in the community standards > very carefully. > > 3. Spencer's quoting of the Recurse Center User Manual is spot on and > worth quoting again: > > If someone says, “that’s a Community Standards violation" don't worry. >> Just apologize, reflect for a second, and move on. It doesn't mean you're a >> "bad" person, or even a "bad” community member. These rules are meant to be >> lightweight. We've all done these things before. In fact, we originally >> adopted a no well-actually policy for our company because Nick and Dave >> well-actually'd each other all the time. > > > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 12:20 PM, SVAKSHA <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Scott Jones <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> > >> > On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 6:08:47 AM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >> >> >> >> No, it's the sexualization specifically. If we had named the language >> >> "James", people would not be joking about how they were spending late >> nights >> >> with James or commenting on how attractive James is. Perhaps it's our >> bad >> >> for picking a feminine name, but I still like the name and hope that I >> don't >> >> come to regret it. It makes me wince every time someone refers to >> Julia as >> >> "she" because while that's fairly innocuous in itself, a majority of >> the >> >> time the next statement is something that makes me uncomfortable. And >> if it >> >> makes me unconfortable, then it's guaranteed that it makes others feel >> >> unwelcomed and like outsiders – which is not ok. >> >> Stefan, first, I owe you a "Thank you" for creating the community >> standards, and a second "Thank you" for enforcing it. Very few FOSS[1] >> communities care about having a CoC, much less enforcing it, so I am >> glad to see that isnt the case in Julia. >> >> > I think Sisyphuss might actually have meant "genderization", not >> > "sexualization" >> > (I'm not sure if English is Sisyphuss' first language, which might >> explain >> > it). >> > >> > There is a big difference, and in many languages, it is not even >> possible to >> > avoid assigning a gender to a word. >> > Lua, for example, is a feminine noun (A Lua, the moon). >> > You can't even talk about a language in those languages without using >> either >> > masculine or feminine pronouns. >> > ("El idioma" or "La lengua" or "El lenguaje", for example). >> > Even in English, certain types of things are generally referred to with >> one >> > gender or the other - for example, people generally use the feminine >> pronoun >> > for boats, ships, and sometimes cars. >> > >> > Also, just calling something beautiful is not necessarily "sexualizing" >> it. >> > I could say that I find Scheme's sparse syntax is beautiful, for example >> > (and I have said just that in the past!). >> > In English, beautiful is commonly used for things, not just women, so >> > doesn't necessarily indicate any sort of sexualization. >> >> I may not be personally offended or pushed out of Foss entirely >> because I have experienced harassment, been sexually objectified or >> stalked in Foss communities - I have, but a lot of women prefer to >> leave, quietly. They prefer spending their time in better environments >> that respected them, their time and efforts and I agree with that >> observation - any Foss volunteers time and effort, irrespective of the >> gender they belong to, deserves respect, so I'll echo Katie that >> telling women to not get offended, not be thin-skinned is not the way >> forward. >> >> >> > Julia community is international, where English is not the >> > first language of many speakers, I think maybe the Julia Community >> Standard >> > should be updated. >> >> The English language is not my native language either but that is not >> an excuse to be unprofessional - sadly, a very very common theme in >> Foss communities. This language would not be acceptable in a work >> environment or official documentation, so why should Foss communities >> put up with unprofessional behavior? This would not drive me out of >> Foss but its annoying and cringe-inducing to hear unprofessional >> attitudes are acceptable because this is a FOSS community where >> anything goes. Not! >> >> >> >>the programming language is not a person and does not have a gender. >> > I think this should not be Anglo-centric, and would instead be clearer >> as >> > follows: >> > "the programming language is not a person and should not be >> > anthropomorphized". >> >> Fwiw, non-native English speakers would not be using the term >> "anthropomorphized" on a regular basis (I had to search for it), but >> they would definitely understand what "sexualizing" means. While >> writing standards[2] or documenting terms[3] it helps to use >> terminology that is commonly used and easily understandable. Watering >> down the terms will only create scope for more arguments that the >> reader misunderstood the writer, exactly like some of the responses in >> this thread that call out Stefan for enforcing the CoC. >> >> >> > Also, I don't think that sexualizing would not happen if it had the name >> > "James" (people being people, after all). >> > The jokes might be less (because our society unfortunately tends to >> > objectify and sexualize women more than men, and also because >> unfortunately >> > there are many more men than women programmers), but they'd still >> happen. >> > The jokes about a straight/bisexual woman or gay/bisexual man who >> spends a >> > lot of late nights with James would still happen... like I said, >> > people are people, and they *will* make jokes and bad puns if there is >> any >> > opening for such. >> > (it could even be a straight guy or lesbian woman - if Julia were named >> > James, I'm sure I'd have been the brunt of many jokes about how I must >> be >> > really be gay, from all the nights I've been spending with James). >> >> Isnt that what the CoC is trying to do - clearly state that any joke >> or statement that objectifies or puts down people of **any** gender is >> not Ok? Its quite common to hear such jokes between friends and people >> that one knows well, but given the widespread use of FOSS in business, >> it (Foss) is an extension of the professional space where your >> above-mentioned scenarios would not be acceptable in a public setting. >> If its not acceptable in an office where one is expected to follow >> professional norms, why treat Foss volunteers with any less respect >> than what your co-workers deserve? >> >> >> > I think the important points would be to >> > 1) *gently* remind people to not anthropomorphize Julia >> > 2) remind them that in English and other languages where possible, >> neuter >> > pronouns should be used >> > 3) point out that *real* cases of sexualization are not considered >> > acceptable in public forums about Julia. >> >> The Geek Feminism wiki has a longer list, as does the Rust and other >> communities[1][3] so you may want to use those for reference while >> improving the BR[2]. >> >> >> >> Carlos, I want to apologize for making an issue of this at the risk of >> >> alienating or shaming you – that is absolutely not the intention and I >> hope >> >> it doesn't have that effect. For what it's worth, I don't think that >> your >> >> comment was meant maliciously and I wish I didn't have to say any of >> this. >> >> But standing by our community standards is too important not to say >> >> something. >> >> +1. >> >> > >> > The sad thing here is that it seems that Carlos very good points on >> naming >> > have been lost, because of a single line: >> >> Yup, I was enjoying the technical discussion until that line, which ... >> >> >>are mostly courting her because of how beautiful she is >> > which in Spanish would probably not be an issue, because the "her" and >> "she" >> > are simply how you have to say it >> > (and Carlos' first language might also not be English). >> >> ... was, and to <quote> (a fortiori, this is specially true for Julia, >> considering that -by now- people are mostly courting her because of >> how beautiful she is). </quote> >> >> The Latin phrase `a fortiori` when used in English[4] is an adverbial >> phrase meaning "by even greater force of logic" or "all the more so", >> so I dont think Stefan misread the "sexualization" aspect by a >> non-native English language speaker/user. >> >> When I first read Stefan's email I was wondering if I should thank him >> publicly or privately - the former runs the risk of protests and >> arguments about the need for a CoC and I chose to stay silent to avoid >> the inevitable in Foss! But, its important to speak up because long >> threads delving into the English language minutiae come across as a >> justification for negative behaviour and while that isnt new, it >> definitely makes me uncomfortable even writing this email - I am a >> non-native English speaker who does not want to argue endlessly on the >> semantics and etymology of natural[5] languages on a mailing list. >> >> Most interestingly, thus far, Carlos didnt claim that (non-native >> English language speaker) as an excuse, but the responses to Stefan in >> this thread are making me wonder - if a core-dev is being called out >> publicly for enforcing community standards, how would the community >> treat a newbie (especially, a woman) who complained of being harassed, >> had creepy comments in private or was stalked on IRC? Something to >> think about, surely! >> >> Till date, I have been happily promoting Julia to one-and-all, but the >> community responses speaks volumes. I truly hope that the community >> supports the core-devs in their efforts to make this space more >> welcoming to all. >> >> [1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations >> [2] The BR : https://github.com/JuliaLang/julialang.github.com/issues/200 >> [3] http://todogroup.org/opencodeofconduct/ >> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_fortiori_argument#Usage >> [5] Far more productive to invest that time and energy in procuring a >> linguistics degree, especially because women keep hearing similar >> arguments across Foss communities - frankly, the echo chamber isnt >> very convincing. >> >> - SVAKSHA ॥ http://about.me/svaksha ॥ >> > >
