I propose naming the master branch Voldemort, so that people do not
speak of its name. Of course this recommendation only applies if noone
finds choosing the name of a "dark" lord offensive.
Adam Hunyadi
On 2020. 06. 18. 12:17, u...@moosheimer.com wrote:
Language is always changing and the meaning of words is changing,
sometimes positively and sometimes negatively.
I think that now is time for change again and we should discuss the use
of phrases and meanings.
Of course we should change "Master Branch" to "Main Branch".
But I also think that we shouldn't just make quick changes because it's
opportune and hastily change a few words.
An example: We could change Master/Slave to Leader/Follower. This may be
a perfect choice for most people in the world.
In German Leader is the English word for "Führer". And it is precisely
this word that we in Germany do not actually want to use for it.
What I mean is that every country and every group (e.g. religion etc.)
has its own history and certain words or phrases are just not a perfect
choice.
We should try to go the ethically correct way worldwide.
This concerns the adaptation of current words and phrases with a view to
all: in English, Indian, Chinese, German etc. but also for indigenous
peoples, different religions etc.
And cultural differences should also be taken into account.
What I would wish for:
Apache.org should set up an "Ethics Board". A group of people of
different genders, all colors, religions and from different countries
and cultures all over our world.
This Ethics Board should find good and for no one discriminating words
or phrases for all the areas that stand out today as offensive.
And it would be nice if not only computer scientists participated, but
also ethicists, philosophers, engineers, various religious people,
chemists, biologists, physicists, sociologists, etc.
And this Council should set binding targets for all projects.
Am 18.06.2020 um 09:36 schrieb Pierre Villard:
In my perspective this should be an issue for the entire community. Being
able to identify an issue that directly affects another person but not
one’s self is the definition of privilege. If I can look at how the use of
these words in someone’s daily life or career impacts them negatively,
when
the change would not harm me at all, I see that as a failure on my part. I
understand the desire to hear from the silent majority, but active
participation and discussion on the mailing list is the exact measure
described by the Apache process for participation in the community. Those
who speak here are the ones who will have a voice.
I could not agree more with the above.
Le jeu. 18 juin 2020 à 04:29, Tony Kurc a écrit :
I suppose I was a bit remiss in not unwinding and/or summarizing some of
what was in that yetus thread to prime the discussion, but a some of what
Andy is mentioning is expanded on a bit in this ietf document [1], which is
linked in one of the articles.
1. https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 10:02 PM Andy LoPresto wrote:
Hi Edward, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’ll reply inline.
- Some of the terms proposed are not industry standard and may
potentially
cause significant issue for non-english speakers.
I actually believe making these changes will _improve_ the clarity for
non-english speakers. “Whitelist” and “blacklist” confer no inherent
reason
to mean allow and deny other than connotative biases. “Allow” and “deny”
explicitly indicate the verb that is happening. Another example is branch
naming. “Masters” don’t have “branches”. “Trunks” do. These terms make
_more_ sense for a non-English speaker than the current terms.
- For each change that is made can we guarantee that we will not lose
clarity of meaning, and then have revert the change down the line if
the
change causes a drop in usage.
I don’t expect the community will opt to change the new terms back to
ones
with negative connotations in the future. If there is discussion about
it,
this thread will provide good historical context for why the decision was
made to change it, just as the mailing list discussions do for other code
changes.
- Of what percentage of people is this truly an issue for and what
percentage isn't. Any change that has the potential to cause a major
split
in the community, there must be as close as possible to a majority, and
not
just from those that are vocal and active on the mailing lists.
Disscustions on other groups are turning toxic, and in some cases are
potentially leading to the collapse of these projects where these
changes
are being implemented with what appears to be without the agreement of
a
signifficant chunk of the community.
In my perspective this should be an issue for the entire community. Being
able to identify an issue that directly affects another person but not
one’s self is the definition of privilege. If I can
