On Dec 7, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Alex Kocharin <[email protected]> wrote:
> 07.12.2013, 19:13, "// ravi" <[email protected]>:
>> On Dec 5, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Nicholas Boll <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Should gendered pronouns be used in documentation? Maybe not. Should a
>>> community member be shunned after a misunderstanding? Definitely not - that
>>> would be intolerant.
>>
>> To many of us: “should gendered pronouns be used” is a *definitely* not. And
>> should a member be shunned after a misunderstanding is *also* a *definitely*
>> not.
>
> You're currently comparing two things here:
> 1. a core membership which affects every single one who is here
> 2. a couple of gendered pronouns in a libuv source file which is used by a
> very few people directly, and most of them can't care less about how it's
> written
>
> I agree with Nicholas. *Maybe* it is worth considering to rewrite that doc.
>
> But if there is somebody in charge who values 2nd point over a 1st one, he
> should not be in charge anymore, I have no doubt about that.
>
Two things:
1. Wherefrom the idea that there is a binary comparison or choice to be made
here? Unless of course you are suggesting that the core contributor has given
us an ultimatum that the male sex be privileged in documentation "or else”.
Which I hope, and consider, not to be the case. I believe we should take Ben at
his word that he is deeply interested in encouraging new entrants, including
women, and that he was unaware of the social reasons why many consider
gender-neutrality in text important.
2. What is the value in slicing and dicing our principles? "Text that is used
by very few people directly, and about the style of which few people care,
shall retain gender discrepancies, whereas text that is read by all shall be
gender neutral”. What is the value or utility in such a principle?
In reality, how we write and speak affects *everyone* (every single one, to
borrow your term, here in the community and more, in the world). No doubt there
can be disagreement on that (just as there can be disagreement on whether a
*hypothetical* person who insists on retaining gender-specificity is valuable
in a holistic sense). Which is/was my point: For some of you one is a maybe and
the other is a definite. For some of us, both are definites. That’s okay to
disagree on and discuss (hopefully in other forums!), but I fail to see how the
discussion is aided by suggesting that people have been throwing the word
“bigot” around: a quick search of the Google group shows the word was used all
of three times (once in the accusation here) and twice, much earlier, in
unrelated threads (for example, about Intel partisans, in one case).
—ravi
That said, I sincerely hope that I live in a world where a project that insists
on retaining gendered terminology (because in the opinion of some it does not
matter, or because it assists some narrow technical activity) will *lose more*
core contributors than it would by correcting such gendered terminology,
irrespective of [minor] technical costs.
--
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"nodejs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
