On 7/27/20 6:09 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > The OE TSC recognises there are issues related to inclusive language > which the project needs to address and that we need a plan for doing so > moving forward. It is unclear how much change the project members wish > to see or can cope with at this point in time, nor how much help is > available to make changes. It is noted that whilst steps were proposed > in the email thread discussion, those have as yet not been acted upon. > > There are some steps the TSC believes the project can take: > > a) Going forward all new code and new variables should use inclusive > language. We will rely on the usual peer review process of changes to > help catch issues and request the communities help in doing so but this > becomes standard policy with immediate effect. > > b) We defer any potential "master" branch name change until upstream > git's direction becomes clearer. This is one of the most invasive > potential changes and if we do change it, we need to get it right and > make a decision based upon tooling support and general wider community > consensus. > > c) We start looking at the function names and patch filenames for > problematic language and accept patches to change those straight away. > This area is much less invasive and lower risk. > > d) We create a list of the potentially problematic variable names on > the wiki so we can understand scope and what kinds of work is needed to > form a better plan, including understanding the potential migration > paths for changes.
Where do we stand on a plan? I noticed a patch already got applied to change names. The name change in that patch, is that "wording" change we should adopt? -armin > > e) We decide not to port any of these changes to the current LTS and > focus on these changes for the next project releases and future LTS due > to limited resources and for current LTS stability. > > f) We aim to ensure the OE and YP TSCs are aligned on our approach to > address this and changes in OE and YP match > > This is intended as an initial response/path forward and may need to > adapt over time as circumstances dictate. It gives us a place to start > from and move forward. > > Richard on behalf of: > > OpenEmbedded TSC > > This was also discussed and agreed by: > > Yocto Project TSC > OpenEmbedded Board > > > > > > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1176): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/1176 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/75821819/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
