Good read from a new GNOME user

[Britt Yazel]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

If we can all take a quick break from discussing Git branch naming, I came
across this users' review of GNOME 3.32 after using it for the first time,
and I thought he had a pretty well thought out set of criticisms.

https://jatan.tech/2019/05/01/gnome-3-32-is-awesome-but-still-has-key-areas-for-improvements/

Now, none of what this user is saying is news to any of us, but I think
this is a very good example of the new user experience with GNOME. Managing
the GNOME subreddit, Twitter, and Facebook pages, I continually see these
same arguments brought up time and time again (literally countless times),
and perhaps it might be a good exercise to go down the list and re-justify
and reconsider our stance on the issues brought up in this list.

While it might seem a waste of time to go through these points one by one,
and even if it is decided to change nothing, at the very least those of us
on the Engagement team will be better equipped to explain to our users our
stance on these points. On the other hand, perhaps collectively our stance
has changed on some of these core concepts, and maybe it's time to set the
ground work for some usability changes.

We have built A LOT of good will with our community and the broader
ecosystem with 3.32, with it being generally regarded (based purely on user
interactions and not qualitative surveying) as a huge success. Hopefully we
can keep that ball rolling to try to hit the pain points one at a time.
Because, sadly, these pain points ARE real, and they need to be addressed
in some way, shape, or form.

I'd be nice to know which items are 1) definitely not going to change, 2)
are open to change pending the manpower to enact it, or 3) are actively
being changed in the near future.

Cheers everyone!

-Britt
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Calum Benson via desktop-devel-list]

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 02:46, Michael Gratton  wrote:
> 
> I deliberately chose "mainline" for Geary's mainline branch name because it 
> has the same auto-complete prefix as "master", for example. Want to check out 
> the mainline branch? Just type "git co m", just like you always have. 
> Lastly, if adopted project-wide, then we'd all get used to the new names 
> rather quicky. Finally, to respond to (3) I am proposing it project-wide now.

Pretty much the only definition of "mainline" (as a single word) in English is 
as a verb with drug-taking connotations. Is that really a big improvement?

Cheers,
Calum.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Olav Vitters]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 02:02:43PM +0200, jtojnar--- via desktop-devel-list 
wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr, 2019 at 11:21 AM, Daniel Playfair Cal via desktop-devel-list
>  wrote:
> > "master/slave" -> "leader/follower"
> 
> Please note that leader/follower terms are commonly associated with
> exploitation of people by cults and should be avoided as well.

Within Salsa leader/follower is commonly used. Also often man/woman,
but leader/follower is more inclusive than man/woman as it doesn't
really matter who leads.

I read later in the thread the leader concept has bad associations in
German. This while the word has been introduced with good intentions
(within Salsa) as to be more inclusive (plus more accurate).

Renaming the master branch only within GNOME is a bit odd. As mentioned,
master has multiple meanings. For the branch there's a different
meaning. Mainline also has multiple meanings. If I ignore the ones which
make sense there's also various non-inclusive meanings of mainline. The
whole proposal feels like grasping at straws IMO.

I don't read every email but why not propose such a change to git? Why
only GNOME?

-- 
Regards,
Olav
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Ernestas Kulik]

On Wed, May 1, 2019, 15:24 Michael Gratton  wrote:

> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 14:32, Ernestas Kulik 
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 21:38 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:
> >>
> >>  After deliberately setting out to make the project more inclusive,
> >>  Python has reversed a five-year-long trend of declining number of
> >>  core
> >>  devs and it has been increasing ever since. They have for example,
> >>  in
> >>  the last three years gone from having 0 to 4 women who are core
> >> devs.
> >>
> >>  They have also been successful in getting other projects to use more
> >>  inclusive language. For example, MongoDB initially refused to stop
> >>  using the term "master", but then relented after Python did so.
> >>  GNOME
> >>  could be in a similar position of leadership here, since it's pretty
> >>  clear /someone/ needs to be the first to do the right thing to get
> >>  others moving as well.
> >
> > To make a counterpoint: The GNOME Foundation straight up hired women
> > to
> > hold positions of leadership, and I don’t remember seeing a big
> > effort
> > to become inclusive. Rather, there was “just” someone generous
> > enough
> > to donate big money that allowed to get people onboard and pay them
> > for
> > their time.
>
> You may have missed then that Outreachy started off as the GNOME
> Outreach Program for Women:  :)
>
> The Impact section there is a particularly good read about the positive
> impact of inclusivity programs, in this case, for women.
>

That is absolutely true, it slipped my mind completely.

>
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 23:31 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:
> It is telling that no one is complaining about replacing uses of 
> "slave" by itself alone.

What a completely bizarre thing to say.

The word "slave" doesn't have a whole slew of homonyms with different
meanings. Only one verb.

So where "slave" has been used, it often does have the connotation that
you want to Bowdlerise. While the various other words spelled "master"
don't have that connotation at all.

If you don't understand the distinction, you really don't seem to have
been listening at all.


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Carmen Bianca Bakker]

Je ĵaŭ, 2019-05-02 je 01:10 +1000, Daniel Playfair Cal skribis:
> As English speakers, we choose how our language evolves. It is a choice to 
> keep using a word just as it is a choice to swap it for a new one. It is not 
> censorship to make a choice one way or the other. Nobody in this thread has 
> suggested that anyone should be sent to jail for talking about the master 
> branch (or any such thing). If changing the word we use is censorship, then 
> continuing with the word we have must also be censorship. The only important 
> question is which word is better to use today and in the future.

I never mentioned the word censorship.

> There is obviously not going to be statistically bulletproof data for whether 
> renaming a branch increases contributions, or has any other specific effect. 
> There are too many variables to measure it reliably.

I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for at least _some_ kind of
demonstration or rationale, because none has been provided, other than
the assertion that the word "master" is inherently tied to the practice
of slavery, and therefore must be harmful to the inclusivity of GNOME.

I do not agree with that assertion. Merely saying it does not make it
true.

>  But it is also obvious that making an effort to use language that does not 
> exclude certain groups is likely to increase participation.

Agreed, but I never said otherwise.

> There are many people and groups that face oppression today or have in the 
> recent past and it is important to be sensitive to that. I think 
> acknowledging this is not some sort of insane joke or "extreme" point of 
> view, it is simply basic kindness and understanding for other people and 
> their experience. If this particular issue seems irrelevant to you, that does 
> not mean it is irrelevant for everyone - and it is not a strong argument 
> either way. Whoever you are, there are words and ideas that will remind you 
> of bad things and make you uncomfortable, and its normal and reasonable for 
> others to make a small effort to avoid these when they are not relevant.

Agreed, but I never said any of those things.

I don't know if any of those statements were aimed at me or were just
general observations. If they were aimed at me, please read my messages
and interpret them charitably before writing. I feel like I'm being
strawmanned into having said things that I did not.

If there was any confusion:

I want GNOME to be a welcoming, inclusive project. I think it's okay
and desirable that GNOME take steps to change things around to make it
more inclusive. I just don't think that the name of the default branch
is problematic to the extent that it warrants changing.

With kindness,
Carmen


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Daniel Playfair Cal via desktop-devel-list]

Just a few comments I think are worth making:

   - The word "master" as in master branch is an synonym/analogy/reference,
   not a coincidence. Language develops together with history, and the
   meanings of words constantly evolve. If a word has multiple meanings, it is
   usually because the word "forked" at some point as related or more specific
   concepts diverged from an older concept. "master" I think is such a word -
   it can mean various different things as has been discussed, but they are
   all related concepts. It is unreasonable to say that master as in "master
   copy" is related to master as in slave driver by pure coincidence. There
   was no CEO of English that rolled a dice one day and thus decided that the
   word for an authoritative copy would be the same as that used for a slave
   driver. It seems obvious to me that the two meanings are different sides of
   the same coin. Perhaps when the fork happened, "authority" was more a
   synonym for "truth" than it is now. On that basis, it is relevant that
   other projects have removed their use of the terms master/slave, and that
   apparently it or similar efforts had a positive effect.
   - As English speakers, we choose how our language evolves. It is a
   choice to keep using a word just as it is a choice to swap it for a new
   one. It is not censorship to make a choice one way or the other. Nobody in
   this thread has suggested that anyone should be sent to jail for talking
   about the master branch (or any such thing). If changing the word we use is
   censorship, then continuing with the word we have must also be censorship.
   The only important question is which word is better to use today and in the
   future.
   - There is obviously not going to be statistically bulletproof data for
   whether renaming a branch increases contributions, or has any other
   specific effect. There are too many variables to measure it reliably. But
   it is also obvious that making an effort to use language that does not
   exclude certain groups is likely to increase participation.
   - There are many people and groups that face oppression today or have in
   the recent past and it is important to be sensitive to that. I think
   acknowledging this is not some sort of insane joke or "extreme" point of
   view, it is simply basic kindness and understanding for other people and
   their experience. If this particular issue seems irrelevant to you, that
   does not mean it is irrelevant for everyone - and it is not a strong
   argument either way. Whoever you are, there are words and ideas that will
   remind you of bad things and make you uncomfortable, and its normal and
   reasonable for others to make a small effort to avoid these when they are
   not relevant.


On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:54 PM Carmen Bianca Bakker 
wrote:

> Je mer, 2019-05-01 je 23:31 +1000, Michael Gratton skribis:
> > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 15:19, Carmen Bianca Bakker
> > 
> > > > I did however point out that Python has replaced uses of the term
> > > >  "master", and we should do the same.
> > >
> > > We should. But not all instances of "master" are equally
> > > problematic—that's the main debate here. I don't see anybody here
> > > disagreeing against replacing instances of master that are NOT related
> > > to Git.
> >
> > Because this has been addressed several times over already. From
> > tonight alone:
> >
> > > This has already been covered in the original proposal under
> > > objection (1) "It doesn't matter". As has already been discussed,
> > > what actually doesn't matter is what you or I think, it is the people
> > > who have been affected by the language we use that matter. These are
> > > the people who won't contribute to GNOME because of these terms, and
> > > it is the project that loses out in the end.
>
> You didn't demonstrate this. I suggested various ways to demonstrate
> this in a previous e-mail in this thread, but you completely ignored
> it.
>
> You keep asserting this to be true, but never back it up with anything
> other than references to other projects who renamed various instances
> of the word "master" (and "slave"), but none of them renamed the Git
> master branch. It's a false equivalence.
>
> Moreover, it's not enough to demonstrate that the word "master"
> sucks—it does. Rather, it needs to be demonstrated that the word—in
> this specific context(!!!)—is actively harmful and/or prevents
> contributions from people who object to its use.
>
> > > In any case, if you would care to actually read the diffs on the
> > > Python change, you'll see that it covered a number of instances of
> > > using another word for "master" when "slave" wasn't involved. It's
> > > not the pair of terms that is problematic, it's either term in
> > > isolation that is.
> >
> > It is telling that no one is complaining about replacing uses of
> > "slave" by itself alone.
>
> This is not a charitable argument at all. There are uses of the word
> "master" that are 

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[mcatanzaro]

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 6:08 AM, Michael Gratton  wrote:
This has already been covered in the original proposal under 
objection (1) "It doesn't matter". As has already been discussed, 
what actually doesn't matter is what you or I think, it is the people 
who have been affected by the language we use that matter. These are 
the people who won't contribute to GNOME because of these terms, and 
it is the project that loses out in the end.


You've yet to provide any evidence for this. We're asking for evidence 
because it is *extremely* difficult to believe. You're losing us here.


To address some of your points directly however, this censorship in 
as much as the CoC is censorship, and as much as you already 
self-censor when choosing names for things in projects you 
participate in. That is to say, not actually censorship at all. In 
fact, you can see this proposal as simply aiming to extend the CoC to 
our documentation, API, and development infrastructure.


Michael, the events CoC is a reasonable CoC written by reasonable 
people designed to ensure we treat each other reasonably well. It has 
broad support -- perhaps not universal, but at least pretty broad -- 
from the GNOME community because we mostly all agree it is reasonable.


What you're proposing is not reasonable. It's really not. There's no 
way you're going to convince the community that we should avoid 
commonly-used words that are generally considered inoffensive, just 
because a small minority might feel otherwise (which, in this case, is 
hard to believe, but I suppose people are not always reasonable).


If you want to help make the GNOME community more inclusive in a more 
productive way, you could, for example, work on generalizing the events 
CoC to apply to all GNOME community interactions, like this mailing 
list, rather than just specific in-person events. I would suspect that 
would have broad support.


Michael


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[mcatanzaro]

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:22 AM, Tristan Van Berkom 
 wrote:

We should also not show favoritism of one set of cultural values over
another, I feel that censorship to this degree is a very western
concept which we should not lend any credit to. Ask has already 
pointed
out that the possible offensiveness of the word 'master' on it's own 
is
even more particular to the USA, I cannot speak to the veracity of 
this

but I do suspect that this is pandering specifically to US
sensitivities, which I also do not agree with.


It's not a "US sensitivity," it's really not. I assure you this 
proposal is wildly farfetched by US standards. I know it is intended as 
a serious proposal, but it reads more as joke or parody and as such 
it's really, really hard to take seriously.


Michael


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Carmen Bianca Bakker]

Je mer, 2019-05-01 je 23:31 +1000, Michael Gratton skribis:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 15:19, Carmen Bianca Bakker 
> 
> > > I did however point out that Python has replaced uses of the term
> > >  "master", and we should do the same.
> > 
> > We should. But not all instances of "master" are equally
> > problematic—that's the main debate here. I don't see anybody here
> > disagreeing against replacing instances of master that are NOT related
> > to Git.
> 
> Because this has been addressed several times over already. From 
> tonight alone:
> 
> > This has already been covered in the original proposal under 
> > objection (1) "It doesn't matter". As has already been discussed, 
> > what actually doesn't matter is what you or I think, it is the people 
> > who have been affected by the language we use that matter. These are 
> > the people who won't contribute to GNOME because of these terms, and 
> > it is the project that loses out in the end.

You didn't demonstrate this. I suggested various ways to demonstrate
this in a previous e-mail in this thread, but you completely ignored
it.

You keep asserting this to be true, but never back it up with anything
other than references to other projects who renamed various instances
of the word "master" (and "slave"), but none of them renamed the Git
master branch. It's a false equivalence.

Moreover, it's not enough to demonstrate that the word "master"
sucks—it does. Rather, it needs to be demonstrated that the word—in
this specific context(!!!)—is actively harmful and/or prevents
contributions from people who object to its use.

> > In any case, if you would care to actually read the diffs on the 
> > Python change, you'll see that it covered a number of instances of 
> > using another word for "master" when "slave" wasn't involved. It's 
> > not the pair of terms that is problematic, it's either term in 
> > isolation that is.
> 
> It is telling that no one is complaining about replacing uses of 
> "slave" by itself alone.

This is not a charitable argument at all. There are uses of the word
"master" that are not—in any way, shape or form—related to the practice
of slavery. No such arguments can be made for the word "slave".

I'm getting a bit tired of this back-and-forth, though. You don't want
to entertain any argument against changing the name of the master
branch at all, asserting that the word is completely verboten and any
instance of it might harm the inclusivity of GNOME. You write off these
arguments because they affect a group for whom you appear to speak, but
you haven't demonstrated that this group exists, or that their
interests align with what you claim.

So I'm withdrawing conversation, because I've already said my bit a few
times over and have been ignored a few times over. In summary, please
consider:

- Contacting several organisations who have more expertise on this
subject to inform our next steps.

- Contacting Git upstream (or places like GitHub/GitLab, why not) to
change the name of the default branch.

With kindness,
Carmen


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Michael Gratton]

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 15:19, Carmen Bianca Bakker 




I did however point out that Python has replaced uses of the term
 "master", and we should do the same.


We should. But not all instances of "master" are equally
problematic—that's the main debate here. I don't see anybody here
disagreeing against replacing instances of master that are NOT related
to Git.


Because this has been addressed several times over already. From 
tonight alone:


This has already been covered in the original proposal under 
objection (1) "It doesn't matter". As has already been discussed, 
what actually doesn't matter is what you or I think, it is the people 
who have been affected by the language we use that matter. These are 
the people who won't contribute to GNOME because of these terms, and 
it is the project that loses out in the end.


And:

In any case, if you would care to actually read the diffs on the 
Python change, you'll see that it covered a number of instances of 
using another word for "master" when "slave" wasn't involved. It's 
not the pair of terms that is problematic, it's either term in 
isolation that is.


It is telling that no one is complaining about replacing uses of 
"slave" by itself alone.


//Mike

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ 


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Michael Gratton]

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 14:32, Ernestas Kulik  
wrote:

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 21:38 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:


 After deliberately setting out to make the project more inclusive,
 Python has reversed a five-year-long trend of declining number of
 core
 devs and it has been increasing ever since. They have for example,
 in
 the last three years gone from having 0 to 4 women who are core 
devs.


 They have also been successful in getting other projects to use more
 inclusive language. For example, MongoDB initially refused to stop
 using the term "master", but then relented after Python did so.
 GNOME
 could be in a similar position of leadership here, since it's pretty
 clear /someone/ needs to be the first to do the right thing to get
 others moving as well.


To make a counterpoint: The GNOME Foundation straight up hired women 
to
hold positions of leadership, and I don’t remember seeing a big 
effort
to become inclusive. Rather, there was “just” someone generous 
enough
to donate big money that allowed to get people onboard and pay them 
for

their time.


You may have missed then that Outreachy started off as the GNOME 
Outreach Program for Women:  :)


The Impact section there is a particularly good read about the positive 
impact of inclusivity programs, in this case, for women.


//Mike

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ 


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Carmen Bianca Bakker]

Je mer, 2019-05-01 je 22:38 +1000, Michael Gratton skribis:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 14:30, Carmen Bianca Bakker 
>  wrote:
> > I think the problem is that, when prompted why we should make this
> > change, you said that we need only look at Python to see why this
> > change is good. But Python did NOT change the name of their master
> > branch, so it's a disingenuous example.
> 
> I never claimed that, so I'm actually the one being mis-represented 
> here. :)

Perhaps it's splitting hairs, but that's how it was interpreted.

> I did however point out that Python has replaced uses of the term 
> "master", and we should do the same.

We should. But not all instances of "master" are equally
problematic—that's the main debate here. I don't see anybody here
disagreeing against replacing instances of master that are NOT related
to Git.

But you didn't respond to anything else in my response.

With kindness,
Carmen


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Ernestas Kulik]

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 15:03 +0300, Alberts Muktupāvels via desktop-
devel-list wrote:
> 
> Numbers please? For example how many contributors GNOME has lost last
> year?
> Do you speak about one or two people? Hundreds people? More?

To be fair, I think that even losing one or two could have a ripple
effect - word of mouth can be really powerful. An anecdote is my
closest friends being indirectly involved, as I just don’t stop yapping
about things I’m passionate about.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Michael Gratton]

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 14:30, Carmen Bianca Bakker 
 wrote:


I think the problem is that, when prompted why we should make this
change, you said that we need only look at Python to see why this
change is good. But Python did NOT change the name of their master
branch, so it's a disingenuous example.


I never claimed that, so I'm actually the one being mis-represented 
here. :)


I did however point out that Python has replaced uses of the term 
"master", and we should do the same.


//Mike

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ 


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Michael Gratton]

Hi Günther,

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 14:16, Günther Wagner  wrote:

i read this list with interest because its a controversial topic. What
i want to know: lets take the approach and rename all master-branches
to something different. Anyone thought about that this will lead to
more usage of master than it is used now? People will come up in
IRC and will ask where is the master branch. And you have to discuss
this probably with every newcomer that we changed it because master
is not inclusive enough. And then you have to discuss the same topic
with every newcomer exactly like it is discussed here.


Good point. I'd suggest though if we don't make this change then we 
will be using the term forever, however if we do make this change then 
use of it will decline over time, both as people get used to it and as 
word spreads.


Further, tools like Gitlab make it obvious what the mainline branch is 
called (it shows up with a badge labelling it as "default") and is 
automatically chosen when appropriate, e.g. when creating a merge 
request. So for newcomers it will be more a case of them just learning 
what a different name from the get-go.


Cheers,
//Mike

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ 


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Ernestas Kulik]

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 21:38 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:
> 
> After deliberately setting out to make the project more inclusive, 
> Python has reversed a five-year-long trend of declining number of
> core 
> devs and it has been increasing ever since. They have for example,
> in 
> the last three years gone from having 0 to 4 women who are core devs.
>
> They have also been successful in getting other projects to use more 
> inclusive language. For example, MongoDB initially refused to stop 
> using the term "master", but then relented after Python did so.
> GNOME 
> could be in a similar position of leadership here, since it's pretty 
> clear /someone/ needs to be the first to do the right thing to get 
> others moving as well.

To make a counterpoint: The GNOME Foundation straight up hired women to
hold positions of leadership, and I don’t remember seeing a big effort
to become inclusive. Rather, there was “just” someone generous enough
to donate big money that allowed to get people onboard and pay them for
their time.

I still, however, see what we’re doing right now as moral grandstanding
that is rather disconnected from the people in the community.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Carmen Bianca Bakker]

Hi Michael,

Je mer, 2019-05-01 je 21:52 +1000, Michael Gratton skribis:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:48, Richard Hughes  
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 12:38, Michael Gratton  wrote:
> > >  They have also been successful in getting other projects to use more
> > >  inclusive language. For example, MongoDB initially refused to stop
> > >  using the term "master", but then relented after Python did so.
> > 
> > That's misrepresenting it *AGAIN*. Both stopped using master along
> > with slave. The main developer branch is still called master in both
> > projects.
> 
> I'm not sure how you can argue that someone *not* having done something 
> demonstrates it would have no effect?

I think the problem is that, when prompted why we should make this
change, you said that we need only look at Python to see why this
change is good. But Python did NOT change the name of their master
branch, so it's a disingenuous example.

I agree that Python's change was good, and I agree that we should adapt
to be more inclusive (and we already do a lot!), but I do not see that
the name of the master branch stops us from being more inclusive, EVEN
IF I personally think that the name "master" is a bit sucky.

Do you have testimonies from people who are (potentially) affected by
the name of the master branch? I think that that would be a lot more
interesting than hypothetics. You keep asserting that the term
master—in isolation—is problematic. But you don't actually back that up
with anything other than guilt by association, or the feminist argument
against gendered terminology.

Maybe I'm asking something very difficult (it's not easy to find
affected would-have-been contributors), but I find that this would be
immensely valuable for this conversation. Maybe you can contact
organisations that fight for the rights of former slaves, and the
descendants of slaves?

And while I agree with the argument against gendered terminology,
and think that the word "master" is the suckiest possible word they
could have chosen among many options (trunk, main, mainline, etc), I do
not feel strongly enough about this to make such a huge, breaking
change.

We would be breaking with all available documentation, and would
(ironically, perhaps) make it HARDER to get started on contributing
because we break with defaults. That's why, if this change is very
important, I would much much much rather see this happen upstream. Have
you contacted upstream Git?

> Since there are no technical barriers and since we have a way of 
> seamlessly handling backwards compatibility, why don't we try this and 
> see how well it works?

Do we really? I'm not entirely convinced that this change is seamless.
I say this as a GNOME translator for Esperanto, which is the only
locale that does not have a territory (e.g., "eo.UTF-8" instead of
"eo_ZZ.UTF-8"). It breaks so much that I keep having to patch over such
a tiny, stupid difference. And when I approach upstream about this,
they say that it is fully supported in glibc, and that downstream
should just deal with it.

It's maybe not the perfect analogy, but breaking with defaults can be
really, really painful.

With kindness,
Carmen


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Günther Wagner]

Hi Michael,

i read this list with interest because its a controversial topic. What
i want to know: lets take the approach and rename all master-branches
to something different. Anyone thought about that this will lead to
more usage of master than it is used now? People will come up in 
IRC and will ask where is the master branch. And you have to discuss
this probably with every newcomer that we changed it because master
is not inclusive enough. And then you have to discuss the same topic
with every newcomer exactly like it is discussed here.

You even have to write it down on newcomer landing pages. "Our master
branch is called mainline because ..."

I think this change will pull the word more in the middle then in the
background.

Just my 2 cents

Günther

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 21:38 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 13:16, Ernestas Kulik  
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 21:08 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:
> > >  In the end, as the experience Python has had clearly shows, we
> > > will
> > >  gain much, much more by being inclusive than we lose by
> > > entertaining
> > >  a small minority who would rather we aren't.
> > 
> > Excuse me if I missed this, but can you elaborate on what has
> > clearly
> > been shown?
> 
> After deliberately setting out to make the project more inclusive, 
> Python has reversed a five-year-long trend of declining number of
> core 
> devs and it has been increasing ever since. They have for example,
> in 
> the last three years gone from having 0 to 4 women who are core devs.
> 
> They have also been successful in getting other projects to use more 
> inclusive language. For example, MongoDB initially refused to stop 
> using the term "master", but then relented after Python did so.
> GNOME 
> could be in a similar position of leadership here, since it's pretty 
> clear /someone/ needs to be the first to do the right thing to get 
> others moving as well.
> 
> //Mike
> 

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Andre Klapper]

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 15:03 +0300, Alberts Muktupāvels wrote:
>
> Numbers please? For example how many contributors GNOME has lost last
> year? Do you speak about one or two people? Hundreds people? More?

General numbers for authors and commits can be found at the beginning
of every Release Notes edition [1] since version 3.2. However note that
those numbers only include commits/merges in the git master branch.

andre

[1] https://help.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/

--
Andre Klapper  |  ak...@gmx.net
https://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Alberts Muktupāvels via desktop-devel-list]

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 2:09 PM Michael Gratton  wrote:

> Hi Tristan,
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 14:22, Tristan Van Berkom via desktop-devel-list
>  wrote:
> > Instead, by opening the door to censorship of words which are not
> > themselves inherently vulgar or foul (i.e. 'master' is not considered
> > a
> > 'swear word'), we are creating an atmosphere where people worry more
> > and more whether they can express themselves freely.
>
> This has already been covered in the original proposal under objection
> (1) "It doesn't matter". As has already been discussed, what actually
> doesn't matter is what you or I think, it is the people who have been
> affected by the language we use that matter.
> *These are the people who won't contribute to GNOME because of these terms*,
> and it is the project
> that loses out in the end.
>

Numbers please? For example how many contributors GNOME has lost last year?
Do you speak about one or two people? Hundreds people? More?


-- 
Alberts Muktupāvels
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Michael Gratton]

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 21:52, Michael Gratton  wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:48, Richard Hughes  
wrote:

On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 12:38, Michael Gratton  wrote:
 They have also been successful in getting other projects to use 
more

 inclusive language. For example, MongoDB initially refused to stop
 using the term "master", but then relented after Python did so.


That's misrepresenting it *AGAIN*. Both stopped using master along
with slave. The main developer branch is still called master in both
projects.



In any case, if you would care to actually read the diffs on the Python 
change, you'll see that it covered a number of instances of using 
another word for "master" when "slave" wasn't involved. It's not the 
pair of terms that is problematic, it's either term in isolation that 
is.


Further, this proposal is actually covers changing fewer terms than 
Python did, and hence is more conservative in that respect.


Please, actually read it: 

//Mike

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ 


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Michael Gratton]

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 13:46, Ask Hjorth Larsen  
wrote:

Also what does Python have to do with this?  What specific gains came
from renaming their branch?  https://github.com/python/cpython .  It
looks to me like they did not rename the branch.  This sort of stuff
has been pointed out to you in several places yet you keep
perpetuating it.


See my reply to Ernestas as to why Python is relevant.

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:48, Richard Hughes  
wrote:

On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 12:38, Michael Gratton  wrote:

 They have also been successful in getting other projects to use more
 inclusive language. For example, MongoDB initially refused to stop
 using the term "master", but then relented after Python did so.


That's misrepresenting it *AGAIN*. Both stopped using master along
with slave. The main developer branch is still called master in both
projects.


I'm not sure how you can argue that someone *not* having done something 
demonstrates it would have no effect?


Since there are no technical barriers and since we have a way of 
seamlessly handling backwards compatibility, why don't we try this and 
see how well it works?


//Mike

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ 


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Richard Hughes via desktop-devel-list]

On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 12:38, Michael Gratton  wrote:
> They have also been successful in getting other projects to use more
> inclusive language. For example, MongoDB initially refused to stop
> using the term "master", but then relented after Python did so.

That's misrepresenting it *AGAIN*. Both stopped using master along
with slave. The main developer branch is still called master in both
projects.

Richard.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Ask Hjorth Larsen via desktop-devel-list]

Am Mi., 1. Mai 2019 um 13:09 Uhr schrieb Michael Gratton :



>
> In the end, as the experience Python has had clearly shows, we will
> gain much, much more by being inclusive than we lose by entertaining a
> small minority who would rather we aren't.

You imply that some of us desire GNOME not to be inclusive.  I don't
think anybody in this thread thinks like that, and this shows very
well how disconnected your thoughts are from reality.  What you wrote
there is a blanket accusation against those disagreeing with your
change.  I don't think that's acceptable.

Also what does Python have to do with this?  What specific gains came
from renaming their branch?  https://github.com/python/cpython .  It
looks to me like they did not rename the branch.  This sort of stuff
has been pointed out to you in several places yet you keep
perpetuating it.

I/we/whoever are not against making changes to be inclusive or
respectful, but you are now the one being disrespectful.

Best regards
Ask

>
> //Mike
>
> --
> ⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
> ⚙ 
>
>
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Michael Gratton]

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 13:16, Ernestas Kulik  
wrote:

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 21:08 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:

 In the end, as the experience Python has had clearly shows, we will
 gain much, much more by being inclusive than we lose by entertaining
 a small minority who would rather we aren't.


Excuse me if I missed this, but can you elaborate on what has clearly
been shown?


After deliberately setting out to make the project more inclusive, 
Python has reversed a five-year-long trend of declining number of core 
devs and it has been increasing ever since. They have for example, in 
the last three years gone from having 0 to 4 women who are core devs.


They have also been successful in getting other projects to use more 
inclusive language. For example, MongoDB initially refused to stop 
using the term "master", but then relented after Python did so. GNOME 
could be in a similar position of leadership here, since it's pretty 
clear /someone/ needs to be the first to do the right thing to get 
others moving as well.


//Mike

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ 


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Richard Hughes via desktop-devel-list]

On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 06:23, Tristan Van Berkom via desktop-devel-list
 wrote:
> Proposing that we replace references to master/slave relationships with
> other terminology and proposing that we eliminate the usage of both
> words entirely are two entirely different proposals, this is a proposal
> of the latter which appears to be masquerading as the former.

This nails my thinking completely. I've already removed all references
to master/slave in my other projects (fwupd and LVFS), but renaming
the master branch which has no connection with any kind of slave is
just a completely different proposal.

Richard.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Ernestas Kulik]

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 21:08 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:
> In the end, as the experience Python has had clearly shows, we will 
> gain much, much more by being inclusive than we lose by entertaining
> a 
> small minority who would rather we aren't.

Excuse me if I missed this, but can you elaborate on what has clearly
been shown?

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Michael Gratton]

Hi Tristan,

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 14:22, Tristan Van Berkom via desktop-devel-list 
 wrote:

Instead, by opening the door to censorship of words which are not
themselves inherently vulgar or foul (i.e. 'master' is not considered 
a

'swear word'), we are creating an atmosphere where people worry more
and more whether they can express themselves freely.


This has already been covered in the original proposal under objection 
(1) "It doesn't matter". As has already been discussed, what actually 
doesn't matter is what you or I think, it is the people who have been 
affected by the language we use that matter. These are the people who 
won't contribute to GNOME because of these terms, and it is the project 
that loses out in the end.


To address some of your points directly however, this censorship in as 
much as the CoC is censorship, and as much as you already self-censor 
when choosing names for things in projects you participate in. That is 
to say, not actually censorship at all. In fact, you can see this 
proposal as simply aiming to extend the CoC to our documentation, API, 
and development infrastructure.


Further, this isn't about "offence", it is in fact about /respect/. 
It's an acknowledgement of a specific, significant past trauma that 
people and their ancestors have suffered and continue to suffer, and 
it's about respecting that so that they feel like GNOME is a project 
they in kind would like to contribute back to. That's what *actually* 
creates an inclusive atmosphere.


In the end, as the experience Python has had clearly shows, we will 
gain much, much more by being inclusive than we lose by entertaining a 
small minority who would rather we aren't.


//Mike

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ 


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list