Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Markus Holtermann]

Hi all,

Mariusz renamed the branches this morning and merged the corresponding pull 
requests. Thank you!

Please let us know if you spot problems so they can be fixed.

Cheers,

Markus

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021, at 6:05 PM, Markus Holtermann wrote:
> Brief update on this.
> 
> The overall tracking pull request ist 
> https://github.com/django/django/pull/14048/
> 
> * On 2021-03-03 at UTC morning, well migrate 
> django/code.djangoproject.com and django/djangoproject.com
> 
> * Likely on 2021-03-09 we'll migrate django/django
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Markus
> 
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021, at 7:31 PM, Markus Holtermann wrote:
> > Thanks for the input, Matthias. That's useful to know. I'll make sure 
> > the change is announced.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Markus
> > 
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021, at 7:24 PM, Matthias Kestenholz wrote:
> > > Yes, please.
> > > 
> > > As a third party app developer I'll have to update a few GitHub 
> > > workflows and tox configurations (since I'm running testsuites against 
> > > the main branch too). It may be useful to announce this change on as 
> > > many channels as possible (mailing lists, the forum, as a news entry on 
> > > the Django website). Just an idea, this shouldn't be a blocker for 
> > > moving forward with this.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Matthias
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 24/02/2021 00:12, 'Adam Johnson' via Django developers (Contributions 
> > > to Django itself) wrote:
> > > > Yes, let's do it. I did it to my open source projects a couple weeks 
> > > > ago 
> > > > and everything has been smooth since. We'll need some find/replace for 
> > > > links in the main repo, on djangoproject.com 
> > > > , 
> > > > and I imagine some other places.
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 22:15, Kenneth  > > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I agree. We should go ahead and do the switch
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:57 AM Markus Holtermann
> > > > mailto:i...@markusholtermann.eu>> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > Reviving an old topic. GitHub has by now tooling in place to
> > > > rename branches and keep open PRs in sync. In fact, if I were to
> > > > change the `master` branch to `main`, GitHub tells me this:
> > > > 
> > > > Renaming this branch:
> > > > * Will update 158 pull requests targeting this branch across 112
> > > > repositories.
> > > > * Will update 1 branch protection rule that explicitly targets
> > > > master.
> > > > * Will not update your members' local environments.
> > > > 
> > > > I'd suggest to go through with this change and make the
> > > > necessary changes to the CI / website.
> > > > 
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > 
> > > > Markus
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Mark Bailey wrote:
> > > >  > +1 on a good decision to make this change.
> > > >  >
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> > > Groups "Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> > > an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/81446dcd-e04c-3c28-91b5-a276a38baaf7%40feinheit.ch.
> > >
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> > Groups "Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> > an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/8caebe33-6b52-46f7-8f7b-b324474a546b%40www.fastmail.com.
> >
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/dd0f1e1a-3e6b-4202-8c55-f0741b35f88e%40www.fastmail.com.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/6eadf150-3208-4300-bedb-c2b615e023f2%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Markus Holtermann]

Brief update on this.

The overall tracking pull request ist 
https://github.com/django/django/pull/14048/

* On 2021-03-03 at UTC morning, well migrate django/code.djangoproject.com and 
django/djangoproject.com

* Likely on 2021-03-09 we'll migrate django/django

Cheers,

Markus

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021, at 7:31 PM, Markus Holtermann wrote:
> Thanks for the input, Matthias. That's useful to know. I'll make sure 
> the change is announced.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Markus
> 
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021, at 7:24 PM, Matthias Kestenholz wrote:
> > Yes, please.
> > 
> > As a third party app developer I'll have to update a few GitHub 
> > workflows and tox configurations (since I'm running testsuites against 
> > the main branch too). It may be useful to announce this change on as 
> > many channels as possible (mailing lists, the forum, as a news entry on 
> > the Django website). Just an idea, this shouldn't be a blocker for 
> > moving forward with this.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Matthias
> > 
> > 
> > On 24/02/2021 00:12, 'Adam Johnson' via Django developers (Contributions 
> > to Django itself) wrote:
> > > Yes, let's do it. I did it to my open source projects a couple weeks ago 
> > > and everything has been smooth since. We'll need some find/replace for 
> > > links in the main repo, on djangoproject.com , 
> > > and I imagine some other places.
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 22:15, Kenneth  > > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > I agree. We should go ahead and do the switch
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:57 AM Markus Holtermann
> > > mailto:i...@markusholtermann.eu>> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Reviving an old topic. GitHub has by now tooling in place to
> > > rename branches and keep open PRs in sync. In fact, if I were to
> > > change the `master` branch to `main`, GitHub tells me this:
> > > 
> > > Renaming this branch:
> > > * Will update 158 pull requests targeting this branch across 112
> > > repositories.
> > > * Will update 1 branch protection rule that explicitly targets
> > > master.
> > > * Will not update your members' local environments.
> > > 
> > > I'd suggest to go through with this change and make the
> > > necessary changes to the CI / website.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > 
> > > Markus
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Mark Bailey wrote:
> > >  > +1 on a good decision to make this change.
> > >  >
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> > Groups "Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> > an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/81446dcd-e04c-3c28-91b5-a276a38baaf7%40feinheit.ch.
> >
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/8caebe33-6b52-46f7-8f7b-b324474a546b%40www.fastmail.com.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/dd0f1e1a-3e6b-4202-8c55-f0741b35f88e%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Markus Holtermann]

Thanks for the input, Matthias. That's useful to know. I'll make sure the 
change is announced.

Cheers,

Markus

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021, at 7:24 PM, Matthias Kestenholz wrote:
> Yes, please.
> 
> As a third party app developer I'll have to update a few GitHub 
> workflows and tox configurations (since I'm running testsuites against 
> the main branch too). It may be useful to announce this change on as 
> many channels as possible (mailing lists, the forum, as a news entry on 
> the Django website). Just an idea, this shouldn't be a blocker for 
> moving forward with this.
> 
> Thanks,
> Matthias
> 
> 
> On 24/02/2021 00:12, 'Adam Johnson' via Django developers (Contributions 
> to Django itself) wrote:
> > Yes, let's do it. I did it to my open source projects a couple weeks ago 
> > and everything has been smooth since. We'll need some find/replace for 
> > links in the main repo, on djangoproject.com , 
> > and I imagine some other places.
> > 
> > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 22:15, Kenneth  > > wrote:
> > 
> > I agree. We should go ahead and do the switch
> > 
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:57 AM Markus Holtermann
> > mailto:i...@markusholtermann.eu>> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Reviving an old topic. GitHub has by now tooling in place to
> > rename branches and keep open PRs in sync. In fact, if I were to
> > change the `master` branch to `main`, GitHub tells me this:
> > 
> > Renaming this branch:
> > * Will update 158 pull requests targeting this branch across 112
> > repositories.
> > * Will update 1 branch protection rule that explicitly targets
> > master.
> > * Will not update your members' local environments.
> > 
> > I'd suggest to go through with this change and make the
> > necessary changes to the CI / website.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Markus
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Mark Bailey wrote:
> >  > +1 on a good decision to make this change.
> >  >
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/81446dcd-e04c-3c28-91b5-a276a38baaf7%40feinheit.ch.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/8caebe33-6b52-46f7-8f7b-b324474a546b%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Matthias Kestenholz]

Yes, please.

As a third party app developer I'll have to update a few GitHub 
workflows and tox configurations (since I'm running testsuites against 
the main branch too). It may be useful to announce this change on as 
many channels as possible (mailing lists, the forum, as a news entry on 
the Django website). Just an idea, this shouldn't be a blocker for 
moving forward with this.


Thanks,
Matthias


On 24/02/2021 00:12, 'Adam Johnson' via Django developers (Contributions 
to Django itself) wrote:
Yes, let's do it. I did it to my open source projects a couple weeks ago 
and everything has been smooth since. We'll need some find/replace for 
links in the main repo, on djangoproject.com , 
and I imagine some other places.


On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 22:15, Kenneth > wrote:


I agree. We should go ahead and do the switch

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:57 AM Markus Holtermann
mailto:i...@markusholtermann.eu>> wrote:

Hi all,

Reviving an old topic. GitHub has by now tooling in place to
rename branches and keep open PRs in sync. In fact, if I were to
change the `master` branch to `main`, GitHub tells me this:

Renaming this branch:
* Will update 158 pull requests targeting this branch across 112
repositories.
* Will update 1 branch protection rule that explicitly targets
master.
* Will not update your members' local environments.

I'd suggest to go through with this change and make the
necessary changes to the CI / website.

Cheers,

Markus


On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Mark Bailey wrote:
 > +1 on a good decision to make this change.
 >


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django 
developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/81446dcd-e04c-3c28-91b5-a276a38baaf7%40feinheit.ch.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

['Adam Johnson' via Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)]

Yes, let's do it. I did it to my open source projects a couple weeks ago
and everything has been smooth since. We'll need some find/replace for
links in the main repo, on djangoproject.com, and I imagine some other
places.

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 22:15, Kenneth  wrote:

> I agree. We should go ahead and do the switch
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:57 AM Markus Holtermann <
> i...@markusholtermann.eu> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Reviving an old topic. GitHub has by now tooling in place to rename
>> branches and keep open PRs in sync. In fact, if I were to change the
>> `master` branch to `main`, GitHub tells me this:
>>
>> Renaming this branch:
>> * Will update 158 pull requests targeting this branch across 112
>> repositories.
>> * Will update 1 branch protection rule that explicitly targets master.
>> * Will not update your members' local environments.
>>
>> I'd suggest to go through with this change and make the necessary changes
>> to the CI / website.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Markus
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Mark Bailey wrote:
>> > +1 on a good decision to make this change.
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> > Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> > an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/1e3d742a-7f38-4258-a5a3-bfb01a333020o%40googlegroups.com
>> <
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/1e3d742a-7f38-4258-a5a3-bfb01a333020o%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer
>> >.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/django-developers/tctDuKUGosc/unsubscribe
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/6fb9c6cc-39a6-4741-9d61-d03a44d9c477%40www.fastmail.com
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFHoQAD1i2X_HXjNPvHGHwYsaamxfMtjGDMT_F-6kg7FVHb5EA%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
Adam

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAMyDDM2AkcYwNP5zhCWBDN%2B7yns-b67cE2_zSxi2Jf%3DrZA%3DzFg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Kenneth]

I agree. We should go ahead and do the switch

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:57 AM Markus Holtermann 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Reviving an old topic. GitHub has by now tooling in place to rename
> branches and keep open PRs in sync. In fact, if I were to change the
> `master` branch to `main`, GitHub tells me this:
>
> Renaming this branch:
> * Will update 158 pull requests targeting this branch across 112
> repositories.
> * Will update 1 branch protection rule that explicitly targets master.
> * Will not update your members' local environments.
>
> I'd suggest to go through with this change and make the necessary changes
> to the CI / website.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Markus
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Mark Bailey wrote:
> > +1 on a good decision to make this change.
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> > an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/1e3d742a-7f38-4258-a5a3-bfb01a333020o%40googlegroups.com
> <
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/1e3d742a-7f38-4258-a5a3-bfb01a333020o%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer
> >.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/django-developers/tctDuKUGosc/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/6fb9c6cc-39a6-4741-9d61-d03a44d9c477%40www.fastmail.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFHoQAD1i2X_HXjNPvHGHwYsaamxfMtjGDMT_F-6kg7FVHb5EA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Markus Holtermann]

Hi all,

Reviving an old topic. GitHub has by now tooling in place to rename branches 
and keep open PRs in sync. In fact, if I were to change the `master` branch to 
`main`, GitHub tells me this:

Renaming this branch:
* Will update 158 pull requests targeting this branch across 112 repositories.
* Will update 1 branch protection rule that explicitly targets master.
* Will not update your members' local environments. 

I'd suggest to go through with this change and make the necessary changes to 
the CI / website.

Cheers,

Markus


On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Mark Bailey wrote:
> +1 on a good decision to make this change.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/1e3d742a-7f38-4258-a5a3-bfb01a333020o%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/6fb9c6cc-39a6-4741-9d61-d03a44d9c477%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Mark Bailey]

+1 on a good decision to make this change.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/1e3d742a-7f38-4258-a5a3-bfb01a333020o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Daryl]

>
> In this word developers said "We 100% support BLM, we against any racism.
> Some of community members have sent proposal for renaming blacklist, but we
> 100% sure, that this term has nothing to do with racism. Moreover, terms
> can't explain things 100% clear, we just use those terms to explain things
> faster. Because we are here is not for inventing and reinventing new terms,
> we are here for building new things. Let me explain in example. When one
> dev from US said to another dev from France - "don't forget to add
> blacklist functionality here", that explains a lot, because term blacklist
> is commonly known term. Someone, from community have an idea to rename all
> blacklist in source code to allowlist, and don't use term "blacklist" at
> all. Well in that case when dev from France will ask "allowlist is a list
> which is allowed to be expended? Or allowlist is a list that is allowed to
> be used by other lists?", the US-dev will answer "No, don't use read
> US-newspapers? allowlist is the same as blacklist but without racism",
> thats why we don't want to reinvent terms for what ever reason. Thank you
> for understanding"
>

"blacklist" isn't as widely understood as you presume, and if you survey
people (but I can't provide the source i have seen in the past) you will
find that more people understand what it means to "deny" than to
"blacklist". QED.

But in the same world astrophysicists haven't been that wise, so they
> claimed: "We 100% support BLM, we against any racism. Thats why we decide
> not to use term "black hole" instead we will use term "heavy thing", we've
> asked a lot of other astrophysicists and they all agree that "heavy thing"
> explains thing better, of course, we are not following for renaming trend,
> we are here for science, it is just a good time to rename something that we
> have planed to rename long time ago. Remember, this all is for future
> generation of astrophysicists not for current generation, because we think,
> that the next generation will be much dumber and we should help them to
> understand new terms"
>
>>
>> That's a facetious argument - black holes are named for their color.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CALzH9quLEbWPn9FHYfs6NQtTKpZBDSeRCmwj8H84-bSvqWmkTg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Alexander Lyabah]

I'm sorry for my bad English

On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 4:40:07 PM UTC+3, John Obelenus wrote:
>
> Alex I find the notion that you think changing terms that have bad racial 
> connotations to be "embarrassing" to be entirely without merit. It is not 
> embarrassing to consider the feelings of Black and other minority people 
> when using language. Moreover, racism is not simply a US only phenomenon. 
> It is a world wide phenomenon.
>
> +1 to making these changes and removing racial undertones from this 
> project. To stand against this change is to refuse to hear the opinions of 
> those who are hurt. That is exclusionary and lacks empathy.
>
> On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 6:20:28 AM UTC-4, Alexander Lyabah wrote:
>>
>> Daryl,
>>
>> I've never called anyone egocentric here, maybe thinking in a very 
>> short-term - yes (like a person, who is making decision just by current 
>> needs and not thinking about future at all)
>>
>> > With regard to the current "hot" topics (master/slave and blacklist / 
>> deny), these may be viewed as trend-following, but a deeper study of both 
>> nomenclature will inform you that current technology in databases no longer 
>> follows the original meaning of master / slave, so a new or different name 
>> is required.
>>
>> Well, this is exactly what trend-following means, I don't know how to 
>> argue here. Please feel free to explain what is trend following means in 
>> your opinion.
>>
>> > Remember, it's all about the future users of Django, not just the 
>> current users.
>>
>> Oh, I'm sure about it, but it doesn't mean those changes as smart, right?
>>
>> Again, as I spend a lot of time explaining why renaming now is a bad 
>> thing, and I'm keep hearing again and again racism is bad and everybody are 
>> doing it, and for some reason renaming terms is a good thing again and again
>>
>> As a final though here (and I promise I'm not going you tire you any 
>> longer) I want to tell you a story that happens in parallel universe.
>>
>> Again, sorry for my English, I spend a lot of time explaining technical 
>> things in English, and study philosophy in Russian, but have being involved 
>> in English discussion like this before, which I'm obviously failed.
>>
>> So, this universe looks exactly the same, fight for freedom, US-news, 
>> BLM, Django etc...
>>
>> In this word developers said "We 100% support BLM, we against any racism. 
>> Some of community members have sent proposal for renaming blacklist, but we 
>> 100% sure, that this term has nothing to do with racism. Moreover, terms 
>> can't explain things 100% clear, we just use those terms to explain things 
>> faster. Because we are here is not for inventing and reinventing new terms, 
>> we are here for building new things. Let me explain in example. When one 
>> dev from US said to another dev from France - "don't forget to add 
>> blacklist functionality here", that explains a lot, because term blacklist 
>> is commonly known term. Someone, from community have an idea to rename all 
>> blacklist in source code to allowlist, and don't use term "blacklist" at 
>> all. Well in that case when dev from France will ask "allowlist is a list 
>> which is allowed to be expended? Or allowlist is a list that is allowed to 
>> be used by other lists?", the US-dev will answer "No, don't use read 
>> US-newspapers? allowlist is the same as blacklist but without racism", 
>> thats why we don't want to reinvent terms for what ever reason. Thank you 
>> for understanding"
>>
>> But in the same world astrophysicists haven't been that wise, so they 
>> claimed: "We 100% support BLM, we against any racism. Thats why we decide 
>> not to use term "black hole" instead we will use term "heavy thing", we've 
>> asked a lot of other astrophysicists and they all agree that "heavy thing" 
>> explains thing better, of course, we are not following for renaming trend, 
>> we are here for science, it is just a good time to rename something that we 
>> have planed to rename long time ago. Remember, this all is for future 
>> generation of astrophysicists not for current generation, because we think, 
>> that the next generation will be much dumber and we should help them to 
>> understand new terms"
>>
>> Thank you, and again, with all respect and with hope for the better 
>> future.
>>
>> On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 1:14:13 AM UTC+3, Daryl wrote:
>>>
>>> The focus while reading the Django pages should be on the differences 
>>> between Django's governance approach (long term goal settings, a board of 
>>> technical experts, meritocratic decision making) vs the many frameworks and 
>>> projects that have flashed in the pan (please excuse me for using a phrase 
>>> that some languages might not understand). 
>>> Typically flash-in-the-pan projects have fewer experts, and control and 
>>> decision making is *usually* meritocratic but sometimes egocentric. 
>>> Eventually, no matter how bright the initial flash is, decisions by the 
>>> self-chosen 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[John Obelenus]

Alex I find the notion that you think changing terms that have bad racial 
connotations to be "embarrassing" to be entirely without merit. It is not 
embarrassing to consider the feelings of Black and other minority people 
when using language. Moreover, racism is not simply a US only phenomenon. 
It is a world wide phenomenon.

+1 to making these changes and removing racial undertones from this 
project. To stand against this change is to refuse to hear the opinions of 
those who are hurt. That is exclusionary and lacks empathy.

On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 6:20:28 AM UTC-4, Alexander Lyabah wrote:
>
> Daryl,
>
> I've never called anyone egocentric here, maybe thinking in a very 
> short-term - yes (like a person, who is making decision just by current 
> needs and not thinking about future at all)
>
> > With regard to the current "hot" topics (master/slave and blacklist / 
> deny), these may be viewed as trend-following, but a deeper study of both 
> nomenclature will inform you that current technology in databases no longer 
> follows the original meaning of master / slave, so a new or different name 
> is required.
>
> Well, this is exactly what trend-following means, I don't know how to 
> argue here. Please feel free to explain what is trend following means in 
> your opinion.
>
> > Remember, it's all about the future users of Django, not just the 
> current users.
>
> Oh, I'm sure about it, but it doesn't mean those changes as smart, right?
>
> Again, as I spend a lot of time explaining why renaming now is a bad 
> thing, and I'm keep hearing again and again racism is bad and everybody are 
> doing it, and for some reason renaming terms is a good thing again and again
>
> As a final though here (and I promise I'm not going you tire you any 
> longer) I want to tell you a story that happens in parallel universe.
>
> Again, sorry for my English, I spend a lot of time explaining technical 
> things in English, and study philosophy in Russian, but have being involved 
> in English discussion like this before, which I'm obviously failed.
>
> So, this universe looks exactly the same, fight for freedom, US-news, BLM, 
> Django etc...
>
> In this word developers said "We 100% support BLM, we against any racism. 
> Some of community members have sent proposal for renaming blacklist, but we 
> 100% sure, that this term has nothing to do with racism. Moreover, terms 
> can't explain things 100% clear, we just use those terms to explain things 
> faster. Because we are here is not for inventing and reinventing new terms, 
> we are here for building new things. Let me explain in example. When one 
> dev from US said to another dev from France - "don't forget to add 
> blacklist functionality here", that explains a lot, because term blacklist 
> is commonly known term. Someone, from community have an idea to rename all 
> blacklist in source code to allowlist, and don't use term "blacklist" at 
> all. Well in that case when dev from France will ask "allowlist is a list 
> which is allowed to be expended? Or allowlist is a list that is allowed to 
> be used by other lists?", the US-dev will answer "No, don't use read 
> US-newspapers? allowlist is the same as blacklist but without racism", 
> thats why we don't want to reinvent terms for what ever reason. Thank you 
> for understanding"
>
> But in the same world astrophysicists haven't been that wise, so they 
> claimed: "We 100% support BLM, we against any racism. Thats why we decide 
> not to use term "black hole" instead we will use term "heavy thing", we've 
> asked a lot of other astrophysicists and they all agree that "heavy thing" 
> explains thing better, of course, we are not following for renaming trend, 
> we are here for science, it is just a good time to rename something that we 
> have planed to rename long time ago. Remember, this all is for future 
> generation of astrophysicists not for current generation, because we think, 
> that the next generation will be much dumber and we should help them to 
> understand new terms"
>
> Thank you, and again, with all respect and with hope for the better future.
>
> On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 1:14:13 AM UTC+3, Daryl wrote:
>>
>> The focus while reading the Django pages should be on the differences 
>> between Django's governance approach (long term goal settings, a board of 
>> technical experts, meritocratic decision making) vs the many frameworks and 
>> projects that have flashed in the pan (please excuse me for using a phrase 
>> that some languages might not understand). 
>> Typically flash-in-the-pan projects have fewer experts, and control and 
>> decision making is *usually* meritocratic but sometimes egocentric. 
>> Eventually, no matter how bright the initial flash is, decisions by the 
>> self-chosen few are made that result in the failure of the project.
>>
>> This isn't to say that a failed project is not of value - many of the 
>> learnings from failed projects are rolled into even better 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Alexander Lyabah]

Daryl,

I've never called anyone egocentric here, maybe thinking in a very 
short-term - yes (like a person, who is making decision just by current 
needs and not thinking about future at all)

> With regard to the current "hot" topics (master/slave and blacklist / 
deny), these may be viewed as trend-following, but a deeper study of both 
nomenclature will inform you that current technology in databases no longer 
follows the original meaning of master / slave, so a new or different name 
is required.

Well, this is exactly what trend-following means, I don't know how to argue 
here. Please feel free to explain what is trend following means in your 
opinion.

> Remember, it's all about the future users of Django, not just the current 
users.

Oh, I'm sure about it, but it doesn't mean those changes as smart, right?

Again, as I spend a lot of time explaining why renaming now is a bad thing, 
and I'm keep hearing again and again racism is bad and everybody are doing 
it, and for some reason renaming terms is a good thing again and again

As a final though here (and I promise I'm not going you tire you any 
longer) I want to tell you a story that happens in parallel universe.

Again, sorry for my English, I spend a lot of time explaining technical 
things in English, and study philosophy in Russian, but have being involved 
in English discussion like this before, which I'm obviously failed.

So, this universe looks exactly the same, fight for freedom, US-news, BLM, 
Django etc...

In this word developers said "We 100% support BLM, we against any racism. 
Some of community members have sent proposal for renaming blacklist, but we 
100% sure, that this term has nothing to do with racism. Moreover, terms 
can't explain things 100% clear, we just use those terms to explain things 
faster. Because we are here is not for inventing and reinventing new terms, 
we are here for building new things. Let me explain in example. When one 
dev from US said to another dev from France - "don't forget to add 
blacklist functionality here", that explains a lot, because term blacklist 
is commonly known term. Someone, from community have an idea to rename all 
blacklist in source code to allowlist, and don't use term "blacklist" at 
all. Well in that case when dev from France will ask "allowlist is a list 
which is allowed to be expended? Or allowlist is a list that is allowed to 
be used by other lists?", the US-dev will answer "No, don't use read 
US-newspapers? allowlist is the same as blacklist but without racism", 
thats why we don't want to reinvent terms for what ever reason. Thank you 
for understanding"

But in the same world astrophysicists haven't been that wise, so they 
claimed: "We 100% support BLM, we against any racism. Thats why we decide 
not to use term "black hole" instead we will use term "heavy thing", we've 
asked a lot of other astrophysicists and they all agree that "heavy thing" 
explains thing better, of course, we are not following for renaming trend, 
we are here for science, it is just a good time to rename something that we 
have planed to rename long time ago. Remember, this all is for future 
generation of astrophysicists not for current generation, because we think, 
that the next generation will be much dumber and we should help them to 
understand new terms"

Thank you, and again, with all respect and with hope for the better future.

On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 1:14:13 AM UTC+3, Daryl wrote:
>
> The focus while reading the Django pages should be on the differences 
> between Django's governance approach (long term goal settings, a board of 
> technical experts, meritocratic decision making) vs the many frameworks and 
> projects that have flashed in the pan (please excuse me for using a phrase 
> that some languages might not understand). 
> Typically flash-in-the-pan projects have fewer experts, and control and 
> decision making is *usually* meritocratic but sometimes egocentric. 
> Eventually, no matter how bright the initial flash is, decisions by the 
> self-chosen few are made that result in the failure of the project.
>
> This isn't to say that a failed project is not of value - many of the 
> learnings from failed projects are rolled into even better projects, but 
> this is not what Django is about. The developers quickly realised (way back 
> in the days when the initial developer's own newspaper project was the 
> largest Django installation around) that a strong governance structure 
> would be required.
>
> With regard to the current "hot" topics (master/slave and blacklist / 
> deny), these may be viewed as trend-following, but a deeper study of both 
> nomenclature will inform you that current technology in databases no longer 
> follows the original meaning of master / slave, so a new or different name 
> is required. This might not suit people of my age who grew up with 
> master/slave databases and understand the non-racist use of the words, but 
> why should the current 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Daryl]

The focus while reading the Django pages should be on the differences
between Django's governance approach (long term goal settings, a board of
technical experts, meritocratic decision making) vs the many frameworks and
projects that have flashed in the pan (please excuse me for using a phrase
that some languages might not understand).
Typically flash-in-the-pan projects have fewer experts, and control and
decision making is *usually* meritocratic but sometimes egocentric.
Eventually, no matter how bright the initial flash is, decisions by the
self-chosen few are made that result in the failure of the project.

This isn't to say that a failed project is not of value - many of the
learnings from failed projects are rolled into even better projects, but
this is not what Django is about. The developers quickly realised (way back
in the days when the initial developer's own newspaper project was the
largest Django installation around) that a strong governance structure
would be required.

With regard to the current "hot" topics (master/slave and blacklist /
deny), these may be viewed as trend-following, but a deeper study of both
nomenclature will inform you that current technology in databases no longer
follows the original meaning of master / slave, so a new or different name
is required. This might not suit people of my age who grew up with
master/slave databases and understand the non-racist use of the words, but
why should the current nomenclature suit just me?
Master / slave patterns still exist in some databases, but generally the
idea of one node being a master is getting rare. This is somewhat poetic,
as it mirrors the real world where in most countries, where the trend is
(hopefully) away from master / slave relationships.

My personal opinion for the 2nd topic (blacklist / whitelist / allow /
deny) is that this is a good time to pick a more descriptive name, and
allow/deny would mirror the linux hosts.allow and hosts.deny logic that has
been perfectly apt for 4 decades or more, and AFAIK is a better description
in most spoken languages in use today. You (Alexander) may prefer
"blacklist", and some of the technical board may also prefer "blacklist" (i
don't know) but you can rest assured that the decision would have been made
without significant weight being applied to the technical board member's
*personal* experiences, but the experiences of every *future* user of the
framework.

Finally,  in order to argue against changing these names (which has been
pointed out has already been merged) you would have to come up with an
argument to show reputational or technical harm would be done by changing.
Of all the users who have posted on the list who *disagree* with the
changes, none have written an argument with substantial merit in my opinion.

Remember, it's all about the future users of Django, not just the current
users.

D




On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 08:10, Alexander Lyabah  wrote:

>  Daryl, that is very strange, that you bring it here now.
>
> > One of Django's strengths is that decision making is *not* polluted by
> one strong opinion, a whim by a marketing department, or trend-following.
>
> renaming whitelist and blacklist is exactly what is in trend right now. I
> understand that not everybody are following US-news, but if you google
> "blacklist blm" you will find, how big the trend is, actually.
>
> Also, thank you sharing those link, but can you plz elaborate more, why do
> you bring those and what do you what to proof by sharing those links, so
> when I read those links again, I know on what point I should focus more.
>
> Thank you for being involved in this conversation.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/267f6649-a434-47fb-93c9-880b594d213ao%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
-- 
==
Daryl Egarr,  Director
Kawhai Consultants Ltd
Cell   021 521 353
da...@kawhai.net
==

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CALzH9qvXHbXVdOVDRJaTm6%2Bh_egPbxk%3DHLQmL%2B%2B%3DSFDxf53T3A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Markus Holtermann]

First things first:

I'm glad, Django changed master/slave and blacklist/whitelist to more 
appropriate and adequate terms. Naming things is hard. And just because 
somebody came up with a name decades ago doesn't mean it can't — or even 
shouldn't — be changed. Especially when there are more descriptive alternatives.

I'm glad, Django is in the position to take a stance for a more inclusive 
language in technology and against decades old, racist, terminology.

I'm glad, Django, as several other software projects out there, picked up on 
the Black Lives Matter protests happening in the US and around the globe.

I'm glad, Django has a Code of Conduct 
(https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/) and a community where racist behavior 
is not tolerated.

---

Alexander, since you brought up the news, I'm sure you're aware that the 
BlackLivesMatter protests are happening around the globe and are not only in 
the US. Racist behavior exists pretty much everywhere, certainly in the US and 
Germany.

I'm a young, white man, from Germany. I have never experienced any racist 
behavior towards me. But I'm fairly certain that there are plenty of people on 
this list who have.

We're still living in a society where white men are privileged in many ways. If 
I can stand in solidarity and support of black colleagues, friends, and members 
of the Django community, by reexamining and addressing language choices that 
have ugly backgrounds to their history, I'm glad!

Markus

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020, at 10:10 PM, Alexander Lyabah wrote:
>  Daryl, that is very strange, that you bring it here now.
> 
> > One of Django's strengths is that decision making is *not* polluted by one 
> > strong opinion, a whim by a marketing department, or trend-following. 
> 
> renaming whitelist and blacklist is exactly what is in trend right now. 
> I understand that not everybody are following US-news, but if you 
> google "blacklist blm" you will find, how big the trend is, actually.
> 
> Also, thank you sharing those link, but can you plz elaborate more, why 
> do you bring those and what do you what to proof by sharing those 
> links, so when I read those links again, I know on what point I should 
> focus more. 
> 
> Thank you for being involved in this conversation.
> 
>  -- 
>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>  To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/267f6649-a434-47fb-93c9-880b594d213ao%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/cd9101a8-f93d-4ba7-b6e8-f97f8bc57d3b%40beta.fastmail.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Alexander Lyabah]

 Daryl, that is very strange, that you bring it here now.

> One of Django's strengths is that decision making is *not* polluted by 
one strong opinion, a whim by a marketing department, or trend-following. 

renaming whitelist and blacklist is exactly what is in trend right now. I 
understand that not everybody are following US-news, but if you google 
"blacklist blm" you will find, how big the trend is, actually.

Also, thank you sharing those link, but can you plz elaborate more, why do 
you bring those and what do you what to proof by sharing those links, so 
when I read those links again, I know on what point I should focus more. 

Thank you for being involved in this conversation.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/267f6649-a434-47fb-93c9-880b594d213ao%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Daryl]

Alexander,

"""What is more important here, Django doesn't have a strong rules for
making decision about how framework is building and changing"""

*You couldn't be more wrong with this statement.*

One of Django's strengths is that decision making is *not* polluted by one
strong opinion, a whim by a marketing department, or trend-following.
You should read this
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.0/misc/design-philosophies/
and this
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/organization/
to educate yourself about how a strong organisation ensures that decision
making is high quality, transparent and meritocratic.

D.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 07:11, Alexander Lyabah  wrote:

> Robert, thank you for your response.
>
> For me, as an experience developer, blacklist is more descriptive, since I
> saw this word in so many other places, languages, frameworks. But it is
> just me, I'm here not to say that my opinion is more important than anyone
> else's.
>
> . Next week US-news will have a new subject for discussion, new words will
> be claimed to be abusive, new django community member will find an abusive
> word in source code (or sounds like it or very close to it), and community
> will be happy to claim this word to be not that descriptive, and find a
> better, more description replacement for it.
>
> with big respect
>
> On Sunday, June 21, 2020 at 6:54:57 PM UTC+3, Robert Roskam wrote:
>>
>> Hey All,
>>
>> I see this opportunity to rename these things to be what they in plain,
>> descriptive language. Since we will rarely have as many people together
>> considering this change, I find it useful to think what we would have named
>> these things from the beginning and then consider if our naming could be
>> more clear.
>>
>> I also found the term master odd when I first started using git. It
>> didn't map to anything or have an analogy that I found useful. If we
>> switched to main/trunk or whatever Github decides on, I don't much care
>> what the new name scheme is.
>>
>> Further, I find the allow/deny, accept/block for lists of things as far
>> more descriptive.
>>
>> Some elaboration: when I first came into professional technical circles,
>> I found the tendency to use color as a short-cut for culturally accepted
>> meaning to be potentially confusing to those from other cultures.
>> White/black, red/green/yellow may have received _technical_ meanings from
>> the last 50-60 years or so from the American-centric culture, and I speak
>> ignorantly, since I'm an American, but I don't know if I can assume that
>> other cultures do the same.
>>
>> Robert Roskam
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 12:28:23 PM UTC-4, Tom Carrick wrote:
>>>
>>> This ticket was closed wontfix
>>>  as requiring a
>>> discussion here.
>>>
>>> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue
>>>  stating it had been
>>> closed, but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's
>>> something I can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases
>>> at the least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>>>
>>> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article
>>> 
>>> - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub
>>> is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these
>>> types of changes.
>>>
>>> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use
>>> that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right now
>>> it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind
>>> of etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms
>>> are as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.
>>>
>>> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms
>>> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be
>>> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also
>>> worried about our credibility if we don't.
>>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/e6311154-ecfc-4117-a1c4-da669dfa6523o%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
-- 
==
Daryl Egarr,  Director
Kawhai Consultants Ltd
Cell   021 521 353
da...@kawhai.net
==

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Alexander Lyabah]

Robert, thank you for your response.

For me, as an experience developer, blacklist is more descriptive, since I 
saw this word in so many other places, languages, frameworks. But it is 
just me, I'm here not to say that my opinion is more important than anyone 
else's.

What is more important here, Django doesn't have a strong rules for making 
decision about how framework is building and changing. Next week US-news 
will have a new subject for discussion, new words will be claimed to be 
abusive, new django community member will find an abusive word in source 
code (or sounds like it or very close to it), and community will be happy 
to claim this word to be not that descriptive, and find a better, more 
description replacement for it.

with big respect

On Sunday, June 21, 2020 at 6:54:57 PM UTC+3, Robert Roskam wrote:
>
> Hey All,
>
> I see this opportunity to rename these things to be what they in plain, 
> descriptive language. Since we will rarely have as many people together 
> considering this change, I find it useful to think what we would have named 
> these things from the beginning and then consider if our naming could be 
> more clear.
>
> I also found the term master odd when I first started using git. It didn't 
> map to anything or have an analogy that I found useful. If we switched to 
> main/trunk or whatever Github decides on, I don't much care what the new 
> name scheme is. 
>
> Further, I find the allow/deny, accept/block for lists of things as far 
> more descriptive.
>
> Some elaboration: when I first came into professional technical circles, I 
> found the tendency to use color as a short-cut for culturally accepted 
> meaning to be potentially confusing to those from other cultures.  
> White/black, red/green/yellow may have received _technical_ meanings from 
> the last 50-60 years or so from the American-centric culture, and I speak 
> ignorantly, since I'm an American, but I don't know if I can assume that 
> other cultures do the same. 
>
> Robert Roskam
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 12:28:23 PM UTC-4, Tom Carrick wrote:
>>
>> This ticket was closed wontfix 
>>  as requiring a 
>> discussion here.
>>
>> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue 
>>  stating it had been closed, 
>> but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's something I 
>> can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases at the 
>> least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>>
>> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article 
>> 
>>  
>> - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub 
>> is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these 
>> types of changes.
>>
>> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use 
>> that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right now 
>> it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind 
>> of etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms 
>> are as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.
>>
>> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms 
>> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be 
>> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also 
>> worried about our credibility if we don't.
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/e6311154-ecfc-4117-a1c4-da669dfa6523o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Hooshyar Naraghi]

Hello,

I totally agree with Alexader's position, and I re-iterate his sentiment:
This is embarrassing.

If I shared this discourse about whitelisting/blacklisting in the software
field with founders of Back Lives Matter, I would suspect that they would
look at me in a strange way.

Don't do something, because it is trending, or, in this case, because some
guy at Google (or at any company) did it. That's called herd mentality. If
any computer professional cares enough about racial discrimination in the
U.S. (and in the rest of the world, for that matter), they ought to get
involved in racial justice movements/projects. There are plenty of them
around.

Would we, please, stay out of messing around with computer/software terms?
Unless one has undisputed evidence that those computer folks who first came
up with terms like whitelisting and blacklisting were racist or at the
minimum they were influenced by a racist history, which I believe they were
not. I would further propose unless one can prove that every time in our
profession we use computer terms like whitelisting and blacklisting, the
thing that triggers our conscious mind is the idea of the white race as
good and the black race as bad, which I believe it does not.

BTW, bringing down statues of Confederate generals/leaders is a different
discourse. They were racist and to this day their existence exemplifies the
institution of racism and discrimination.

Regards,
Hooshyar Naraghi

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 2:11 AM Alexander Lyabah 
wrote:

> I'm not debating, since nobody has something to say. I'm explaining, why
> things that you are doing are embarrassing.
>
> I hoping that wikipedia will be not that populistic
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitelisting
>
> On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 5:32:58 PM UTC+3, Adam Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Alexander, it's not really up for debate any more. We've already merged
>> the PR's to Django.
>>
>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 13:51, Alexander Lyabah 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> let's not change the subject
>>>
>>> we are not talking about black and white, we are talking about whitelist
>>> / blacklist and master / slave. Those statements have a big history in
>>> programming, which has nothing to do with slavery at all.
>>>
>>> Don't mix words with meaning and senses.
>>>
>>> ... It is important to understand when you make changes like this. ...
>>> words and meaning
>>>
>>> I've never seen anyone who is by doing 'git checkout master', think
>>> about white race superior. - It is because master has a different meaning,
>>> different sense, which is nothing to do with slavery, and fight for freedom.
>>>
>>> I've never seen anyone who is by playing white in Go-game, think about
>>> white race superior. (Even though by Go-rules white gets +7.5 points
>>> against Black at the beginning of the game) - it is because white has
>>> different meaning and different sense, and it is nothing to do with
>>> slavery, and fight for freedom (it is because blacks move first).
>>>
>>> You have power here to do what ever you want to do in this framework. I
>>> what you to use common sense and don't follow the rules dictated by
>>> news-channels and big corporations. I want rules, you follow, being strong
>>> and independent from what is going on around. In that case you don't need
>>> to split community after next big news.
>>>
>>> Thank you, with all respect.
>>>
>>> On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 4:18:04 PM UTC+3, Tom Forbes wrote:

 As an international framework I think we should make our interface as
 language and culturally agnostic as possible. ‘Allow’ and ‘Deny’ are simply
 semantically clearer than ‘white’ and ‘black’. That alone is a convincing
 argument for me.

 On 19 Jun 2020, at 13:55, Alexander Lyabah  wrote:

 

 Django in international framework, not US-framework. You should not
 change variable names just because meaning of some words have been changed
 in US recently. Those words have been used in source-code for years, and
 nobody put racism in those word when this framework was founded and nobody
 puts any racism in when one is using for creation something big and
 meaningful.

 What I'm encourage you to do, is to thing farther than what is going on
 right now.

 If Django Foundation really want to help in this revolution - add a
 banner on that landing page. Feel free to choose

 https://eji.org/
 https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6857/p/salsa/donation/common/public/

 And this kind of contribution will work much better.

 Thank you, for this opportunity to share my opinion.

 On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 7:28:23 PM UTC+3, Tom Carrick wrote:
>
> This ticket was closed wontfix
>  as requiring a
> discussion here.
>
> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue
>  stating it had been
> closed, but to 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Robert Roskam]

Hey All,

I see this opportunity to rename these things to be what they in plain, 
descriptive language. Since we will rarely have as many people together 
considering this change, I find it useful to think what we would have named 
these things from the beginning and then consider if our naming could be 
more clear.

I also found the term master odd when I first started using git. It didn't 
map to anything or have an analogy that I found useful. If we switched to 
main/trunk or whatever Github decides on, I don't much care what the new 
name scheme is. 

Further, I find the allow/deny, accept/block for lists of things as far 
more descriptive.

Some elaboration: when I first came into professional technical circles, I 
found the tendency to use color as a short-cut for culturally accepted 
meaning to be potentially confusing to those from other cultures.  
White/black, red/green/yellow may have received _technical_ meanings from 
the last 50-60 years or so from the American-centric culture, and I speak 
ignorantly, since I'm an American, but I don't know if I can assume that 
other cultures do the same. 

Robert Roskam



On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 12:28:23 PM UTC-4, Tom Carrick wrote:
>
> This ticket was closed wontfix 
>  as requiring a 
> discussion here.
>
> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue 
>  stating it had been closed, 
> but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's something I 
> can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases at the 
> least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>
> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article 
> 
>  
> - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub 
> is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these 
> types of changes.
>
> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use 
> that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right now 
> it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind 
> of etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms 
> are as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.
>
> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms 
> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be 
> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also 
> worried about our credibility if we don't.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/53ebc9a5-d795-4449-9900-af948135bd33o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Alexandr Tatarinov]

I would like to share this article 
 which 
has pretty compelling arguments, especially regarding the feelings (point 
4).

On Monday, 15 June 2020 19:28:23 UTC+3, Tom Carrick wrote:
>
> This ticket was closed wontfix 
>  as requiring a 
> discussion here.
>
> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue 
>  stating it had been closed, 
> but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's something I 
> can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases at the 
> least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>
> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article 
> 
>  
> - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub 
> is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these 
> types of changes.
>
> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use 
> that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right now 
> it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind 
> of etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms 
> are as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.
>
> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms 
> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be 
> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also 
> worried about our credibility if we don't.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/1dae409c-bef0-404a-988d-89e548fbdfaao%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Alexander Lyabah]

Btw, PR-author has now a privilege to create an article 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allowlistening

On Sunday, June 21, 2020 at 11:11:02 AM UTC+3, Alexander Lyabah wrote:
>
> I'm not debating, since nobody has something to say. I'm explaining, why 
> things that you are doing are embarrassing.
>
> I hoping that wikipedia will be not that populistic 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitelisting
>
> On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 5:32:58 PM UTC+3, Adam Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Alexander, it's not really up for debate any more. We've already merged 
>> the PR's to Django.
>>
>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 13:51, Alexander Lyabah  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> let's not change the subject
>>>
>>> we are not talking about black and white, we are talking about whitelist 
>>> / blacklist and master / slave. Those statements have a big history in 
>>> programming, which has nothing to do with slavery at all. 
>>>
>>> Don't mix words with meaning and senses.
>>>
>>> ... It is important to understand when you make changes like this. ... 
>>> words and meaning
>>>
>>> I've never seen anyone who is by doing 'git checkout master', think 
>>> about white race superior. - It is because master has a different meaning, 
>>> different sense, which is nothing to do with slavery, and fight for freedom.
>>>
>>> I've never seen anyone who is by playing white in Go-game, think about 
>>> white race superior. (Even though by Go-rules white gets +7.5 points 
>>> against Black at the beginning of the game) - it is because white has 
>>> different meaning and different sense, and it is nothing to do with 
>>> slavery, and fight for freedom (it is because blacks move first).
>>>
>>> You have power here to do what ever you want to do in this framework. I 
>>> what you to use common sense and don't follow the rules dictated by 
>>> news-channels and big corporations. I want rules, you follow, being strong 
>>> and independent from what is going on around. In that case you don't need 
>>> to split community after next big news.
>>>
>>> Thank you, with all respect.
>>>
>>> On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 4:18:04 PM UTC+3, Tom Forbes wrote:

 As an international framework I think we should make our interface as 
 language and culturally agnostic as possible. ‘Allow’ and ‘Deny’ are 
 simply 
 semantically clearer than ‘white’ and ‘black’. That alone is a convincing 
 argument for me.

 On 19 Jun 2020, at 13:55, Alexander Lyabah  wrote:

 

 Django in international framework, not US-framework. You should not 
 change variable names just because meaning of some words have been changed 
 in US recently. Those words have been used in source-code for years, and 
 nobody put racism in those word when this framework was founded and nobody 
 puts any racism in when one is using for creation something big and 
 meaningful.

 What I'm encourage you to do, is to thing farther than what is going on 
 right now.

 If Django Foundation really want to help in this revolution - add a 
 banner on that landing page. Feel free to choose

 https://eji.org/
 https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6857/p/salsa/donation/common/public/

 And this kind of contribution will work much better.

 Thank you, for this opportunity to share my opinion.

 On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 7:28:23 PM UTC+3, Tom Carrick wrote:
>
> This ticket was closed wontfix 
>  as requiring a 
> discussion here.
>
> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue 
>  stating it had been 
> closed, but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's 
> something I can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add 
> aliases 
> at the least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>
> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet 
> article 
> 
>  
> - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and 
> GitHub 
> is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these 
> types of changes.
>
> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we 
> use that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though 
> right 
> now it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some 
> kind of etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical 
> terms are as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.
>
> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of 
> worms somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be 
> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also 
> worried about 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Alexander Lyabah]

I'm not debating, since nobody has something to say. I'm explaining, why 
things that you are doing are embarrassing.

I hoping that wikipedia will be not that populistic 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitelisting

On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 5:32:58 PM UTC+3, Adam Johnson wrote:
>
> Alexander, it's not really up for debate any more. We've already merged 
> the PR's to Django.
>
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 13:51, Alexander Lyabah  > wrote:
>
>> let's not change the subject
>>
>> we are not talking about black and white, we are talking about whitelist 
>> / blacklist and master / slave. Those statements have a big history in 
>> programming, which has nothing to do with slavery at all. 
>>
>> Don't mix words with meaning and senses.
>>
>> ... It is important to understand when you make changes like this. ... 
>> words and meaning
>>
>> I've never seen anyone who is by doing 'git checkout master', think about 
>> white race superior. - It is because master has a different meaning, 
>> different sense, which is nothing to do with slavery, and fight for freedom.
>>
>> I've never seen anyone who is by playing white in Go-game, think about 
>> white race superior. (Even though by Go-rules white gets +7.5 points 
>> against Black at the beginning of the game) - it is because white has 
>> different meaning and different sense, and it is nothing to do with 
>> slavery, and fight for freedom (it is because blacks move first).
>>
>> You have power here to do what ever you want to do in this framework. I 
>> what you to use common sense and don't follow the rules dictated by 
>> news-channels and big corporations. I want rules, you follow, being strong 
>> and independent from what is going on around. In that case you don't need 
>> to split community after next big news.
>>
>> Thank you, with all respect.
>>
>> On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 4:18:04 PM UTC+3, Tom Forbes wrote:
>>>
>>> As an international framework I think we should make our interface as 
>>> language and culturally agnostic as possible. ‘Allow’ and ‘Deny’ are simply 
>>> semantically clearer than ‘white’ and ‘black’. That alone is a convincing 
>>> argument for me.
>>>
>>> On 19 Jun 2020, at 13:55, Alexander Lyabah  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> Django in international framework, not US-framework. You should not 
>>> change variable names just because meaning of some words have been changed 
>>> in US recently. Those words have been used in source-code for years, and 
>>> nobody put racism in those word when this framework was founded and nobody 
>>> puts any racism in when one is using for creation something big and 
>>> meaningful.
>>>
>>> What I'm encourage you to do, is to thing farther than what is going on 
>>> right now.
>>>
>>> If Django Foundation really want to help in this revolution - add a 
>>> banner on that landing page. Feel free to choose
>>>
>>> https://eji.org/
>>> https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6857/p/salsa/donation/common/public/
>>>
>>> And this kind of contribution will work much better.
>>>
>>> Thank you, for this opportunity to share my opinion.
>>>
>>> On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 7:28:23 PM UTC+3, Tom Carrick wrote:

 This ticket was closed wontfix 
  as requiring a 
 discussion here.

 David Smith mentioned this Tox issue 
  stating it had been 
 closed, but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's 
 something I can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add 
 aliases 
 at the least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).

 My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet 
 article 
 
  
 - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and 
 GitHub 
 is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these 
 types of changes.

 I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use 
 that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right 
 now 
 it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind 
 of etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms 
 are as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.

 I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of 
 worms somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be 
 concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also 
 worried about our credibility if we don't.

>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Adam Johnson]

Alexander, it's not really up for debate any more. We've already merged the
PR's to Django.

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 13:51, Alexander Lyabah  wrote:

> let's not change the subject
>
> we are not talking about black and white, we are talking about whitelist /
> blacklist and master / slave. Those statements have a big history in
> programming, which has nothing to do with slavery at all.
>
> Don't mix words with meaning and senses.
>
> ... It is important to understand when you make changes like this. ...
> words and meaning
>
> I've never seen anyone who is by doing 'git checkout master', think about
> white race superior. - It is because master has a different meaning,
> different sense, which is nothing to do with slavery, and fight for freedom.
>
> I've never seen anyone who is by playing white in Go-game, think about
> white race superior. (Even though by Go-rules white gets +7.5 points
> against Black at the beginning of the game) - it is because white has
> different meaning and different sense, and it is nothing to do with
> slavery, and fight for freedom (it is because blacks move first).
>
> You have power here to do what ever you want to do in this framework. I
> what you to use common sense and don't follow the rules dictated by
> news-channels and big corporations. I want rules, you follow, being strong
> and independent from what is going on around. In that case you don't need
> to split community after next big news.
>
> Thank you, with all respect.
>
> On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 4:18:04 PM UTC+3, Tom Forbes wrote:
>>
>> As an international framework I think we should make our interface as
>> language and culturally agnostic as possible. ‘Allow’ and ‘Deny’ are simply
>> semantically clearer than ‘white’ and ‘black’. That alone is a convincing
>> argument for me.
>>
>> On 19 Jun 2020, at 13:55, Alexander Lyabah  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Django in international framework, not US-framework. You should not
>> change variable names just because meaning of some words have been changed
>> in US recently. Those words have been used in source-code for years, and
>> nobody put racism in those word when this framework was founded and nobody
>> puts any racism in when one is using for creation something big and
>> meaningful.
>>
>> What I'm encourage you to do, is to thing farther than what is going on
>> right now.
>>
>> If Django Foundation really want to help in this revolution - add a
>> banner on that landing page. Feel free to choose
>>
>> https://eji.org/
>> https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6857/p/salsa/donation/common/public/
>>
>> And this kind of contribution will work much better.
>>
>> Thank you, for this opportunity to share my opinion.
>>
>> On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 7:28:23 PM UTC+3, Tom Carrick wrote:
>>>
>>> This ticket was closed wontfix
>>>  as requiring a
>>> discussion here.
>>>
>>> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue
>>>  stating it had been
>>> closed, but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's
>>> something I can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases
>>> at the least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>>>
>>> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article
>>> 
>>> - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub
>>> is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these
>>> types of changes.
>>>
>>> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use
>>> that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right now
>>> it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind
>>> of etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms
>>> are as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.
>>>
>>> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms
>>> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be
>>> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also
>>> worried about our credibility if we don't.
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/1c9178a3-cb80-428c-bacb-e8904695f6b6o%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Alexander Lyabah]

let's not change the subject

we are not talking about black and white, we are talking about whitelist / 
blacklist and master / slave. Those statements have a big history in 
programming, which has nothing to do with slavery at all. 

Don't mix words with meaning and senses.

... It is important to understand when you make changes like this. ... 
words and meaning

I've never seen anyone who is by doing 'git checkout master', think about 
white race superior. - It is because master has a different meaning, 
different sense, which is nothing to do with slavery, and fight for freedom.

I've never seen anyone who is by playing white in Go-game, think about 
white race superior. (Even though by Go-rules white gets +7.5 points 
against Black at the beginning of the game) - it is because white has 
different meaning and different sense, and it is nothing to do with 
slavery, and fight for freedom (it is because blacks move first).

You have power here to do what ever you want to do in this framework. I 
what you to use common sense and don't follow the rules dictated by 
news-channels and big corporations. I want rules, you follow, being strong 
and independent from what is going on around. In that case you don't need 
to split community after next big news.

Thank you, with all respect.

On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 4:18:04 PM UTC+3, Tom Forbes wrote:
>
> As an international framework I think we should make our interface as 
> language and culturally agnostic as possible. ‘Allow’ and ‘Deny’ are simply 
> semantically clearer than ‘white’ and ‘black’. That alone is a convincing 
> argument for me.
>
> On 19 Jun 2020, at 13:55, Alexander Lyabah  > wrote:
>
> 
>
> Django in international framework, not US-framework. You should not change 
> variable names just because meaning of some words have been changed in US 
> recently. Those words have been used in source-code for years, and nobody 
> put racism in those word when this framework was founded and nobody puts 
> any racism in when one is using for creation something big and meaningful.
>
> What I'm encourage you to do, is to thing farther than what is going on 
> right now.
>
> If Django Foundation really want to help in this revolution - add a banner 
> on that landing page. Feel free to choose
>
> https://eji.org/
> https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6857/p/salsa/donation/common/public/
>
> And this kind of contribution will work much better.
>
> Thank you, for this opportunity to share my opinion.
>
> On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 7:28:23 PM UTC+3, Tom Carrick wrote:
>>
>> This ticket was closed wontfix 
>>  as requiring a 
>> discussion here.
>>
>> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue 
>>  stating it had been closed, 
>> but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's something I 
>> can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases at the 
>> least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>>
>> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article 
>> 
>>  
>> - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub 
>> is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these 
>> types of changes.
>>
>> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use 
>> that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right now 
>> it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind 
>> of etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms 
>> are as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.
>>
>> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms 
>> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be 
>> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also 
>> worried about our credibility if we don't.
>>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to django-d...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/1c9178a3-cb80-428c-bacb-e8904695f6b6o%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Alexander Lyabah]

Ahmad, 

> we should strive to set an international standard

No, we shouldn't we are here for creating framework, just treat your child 
well and it is enough to changing the world for the best.

> If a certain word is off-putting or problematic to individuals in our 
community

We can always find words that "off-putting or problematic to individuals in 
our community", the only difference between those words is that not all of 
them are on news-channel, but it should be a reason for changing anything.

> if it does not convey an accurate and least astonishing meaning to a 
non-native English speaker

Well, bases on this very week statement, we can change a lot of words in 
django source code. And it will not make Django community better, as well 
the world better.



On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 4:18:52 PM UTC+3, Ahmad A. Hussein wrote:
>
> I'd argue that since Django is an international framework, we should 
> strive to set an international standard. If a certain word is off-putting 
> or problematic to individuals in our community, and if it does not convey 
> an accurate and least astonishing meaning to a non-native English speaker, 
> then we should definitely change it.
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:54 PM Alexander Lyabah  > wrote:
>
>>
>> Django in international framework, not US-framework. You should not 
>> change variable names just because meaning of some words have been changed 
>> in US recently. Those words have been used in source-code for years, and 
>> nobody put racism in those word when this framework was founded and nobody 
>> puts any racism in when one is using for creation something big and 
>> meaningful.
>>
>> What I'm encourage you to do, is to thing farther than what is going on 
>> right now.
>>
>> If Django Foundation really want to help in this revolution - add a 
>> banner on that landing page. Feel free to choose
>>
>> https://eji.org/
>> https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6857/p/salsa/donation/common/public/
>>
>> And this kind of contribution will work much better.
>>
>> Thank you, for this opportunity to share my opinion.
>>
>> On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 7:28:23 PM UTC+3, Tom Carrick wrote:
>>>
>>> This ticket was closed wontfix 
>>>  as requiring a 
>>> discussion here.
>>>
>>> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue 
>>>  stating it had been 
>>> closed, but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's 
>>> something I can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases 
>>> at the least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>>>
>>> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub 
>>> is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these 
>>> types of changes.
>>>
>>> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use 
>>> that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right now 
>>> it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind 
>>> of etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms 
>>> are as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.
>>>
>>> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms 
>>> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be 
>>> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also 
>>> worried about our credibility if we don't.
>>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to django-d...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/1c9178a3-cb80-428c-bacb-e8904695f6b6o%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/169bc6b4-5027-48f1-b4f9-a5ccc87dea14o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Ahmad A. Hussein]

I'd argue that since Django is an international framework, we should strive
to set an international standard. If a certain word is off-putting or
problematic to individuals in our community, and if it does not convey an
accurate and least astonishing meaning to a non-native English speaker,
then we should definitely change it.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:54 PM Alexander Lyabah 
wrote:

>
> Django in international framework, not US-framework. You should not change
> variable names just because meaning of some words have been changed in US
> recently. Those words have been used in source-code for years, and nobody
> put racism in those word when this framework was founded and nobody puts
> any racism in when one is using for creation something big and meaningful.
>
> What I'm encourage you to do, is to thing farther than what is going on
> right now.
>
> If Django Foundation really want to help in this revolution - add a banner
> on that landing page. Feel free to choose
>
> https://eji.org/
> https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6857/p/salsa/donation/common/public/
>
> And this kind of contribution will work much better.
>
> Thank you, for this opportunity to share my opinion.
>
> On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 7:28:23 PM UTC+3, Tom Carrick wrote:
>>
>> This ticket was closed wontfix
>>  as requiring a
>> discussion here.
>>
>> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue
>>  stating it had been closed,
>> but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's something I
>> can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases at the
>> least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>>
>> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article
>> 
>> - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub
>> is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these
>> types of changes.
>>
>> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use
>> that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right now
>> it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind
>> of etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms
>> are as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.
>>
>> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms
>> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be
>> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also
>> worried about our credibility if we don't.
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/1c9178a3-cb80-428c-bacb-e8904695f6b6o%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAJNa-uOOWNRmAnDhiydQC-MrEsRDyED%2B_PJzFDu5gU6GjqSs1A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Tom Forbes]

As an international framework I think we should make our interface as language 
and culturally agnostic as possible. ‘Allow’ and ‘Deny’ are simply semantically 
clearer than ‘white’ and ‘black’. That alone is a convincing argument for me.

> On 19 Jun 2020, at 13:55, Alexander Lyabah  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Django in international framework, not US-framework. You should not change 
> variable names just because meaning of some words have been changed in US 
> recently. Those words have been used in source-code for years, and nobody put 
> racism in those word when this framework was founded and nobody puts any 
> racism in when one is using for creation something big and meaningful.
> 
> What I'm encourage you to do, is to thing farther than what is going on right 
> now.
> 
> If Django Foundation really want to help in this revolution - add a banner on 
> that landing page. Feel free to choose
> 
> https://eji.org/
> https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6857/p/salsa/donation/common/public/
> 
> And this kind of contribution will work much better.
> 
> Thank you, for this opportunity to share my opinion.
> 
>> On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 7:28:23 PM UTC+3, Tom Carrick wrote:
>> This ticket was closed wontfix as requiring a discussion here.
>> 
>> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue stating it had been closed, but to me 
>> it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's something I can't see) 
>> and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases at the least (this is 
>> more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>> 
>> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article - 
>> it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub is 
>> also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these types 
>> of changes.
>> 
>> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use that 
>> terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right now it 
>> seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind of 
>> etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms are 
>> as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.
>> 
>> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms 
>> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be concerned 
>> with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also worried about 
>> our credibility if we don't.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/1c9178a3-cb80-428c-bacb-e8904695f6b6o%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/FB71B5CC-7224-4C17-8C9A-E4B263B4D0C8%40tomforb.es.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Alexander Lyabah]

Django in international framework, not US-framework. You should not change 
variable names just because meaning of some words have been changed in US 
recently. Those words have been used in source-code for years, and nobody 
put racism in those word when this framework was founded and nobody puts 
any racism in when one is using for creation something big and meaningful.

What I'm encourage you to do, is to thing farther than what is going on 
right now.

If Django Foundation really want to help in this revolution - add a banner 
on that landing page. Feel free to choose

https://eji.org/
https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6857/p/salsa/donation/common/public/

And this kind of contribution will work much better.

Thank you, for this opportunity to share my opinion.

On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 7:28:23 PM UTC+3, Tom Carrick wrote:
>
> This ticket was closed wontfix 
>  as requiring a 
> discussion here.
>
> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue 
>  stating it had been closed, 
> but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's something I 
> can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases at the 
> least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>
> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article 
> 
>  
> - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub 
> is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these 
> types of changes.
>
> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use 
> that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right now 
> it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind 
> of etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms 
> are as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.
>
> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms 
> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be 
> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also 
> worried about our credibility if we don't.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/1c9178a3-cb80-428c-bacb-e8904695f6b6o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Andrew Godwin]

I've definitely in favour of fixing all of the problematic word usage - after 
all, we eliminated master/slave from the database documentation years ago, 
we've just been a bit negligent at fixing the others.

Agreed with Adam, though, about seeing what GitHub builds - they announced 
they're working on something, and if it allows seamless migration, that'd be 
great. That said, if they take more than a month or two, we should just change 
it and get it over with.

Andrew

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020, at 12:59 PM, Adam Johnson wrote:
> On the branch rename, right now I'd rather wait to see what GitHub builds 
> that could help with this. It might allow aliasing master->main so that 
> existing PR's don't need targeting, local clones don't need updating, etc. It 
> also seems Git will make a change and it might be worth waiting to see what 
> that looks like.
> 
> On the blacklist/whitelist rename, I've reopened the ticket and Tim Graham 
> already reopened the PR.
> 
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 19:46, Tom Carrick  wrote:
>> On moving away from the master branch, it would be a lot of effort (not just 
>> in the repo, but docs, Trac, etc.), but I think it's worth doing regardless. 
>> I think there is often some reluctance to do something time-consuming 
>> because it takes someone's time away from technical issues. I don't think 
>> this is necessarily true. Although we could always use more contributors, 
>> this is something that's fairly easy for a newcomer (talking specifically 
>> about the changes to docs). There's no requirement to know about ORM 
>> internals, async implementation, or anything else. Just some time and 
>> thoroughness. I'd be happy to put the time in, and I'm sure there are many 
>> other (potential) contributors willing to do so, and It doesn't stop the 
>> more technical people working on the issues they want to. I think all that 
>> is really required - if/when a decision is made, would be to review the PR, 
>> change the branch in Github, migrate Trac. Of course I don't know what else 
>> is affected, so maybe I'm being optimistic here.
>> 
>> This does have some precedent also, there was a move from trunk to master 
>> when moving from SVN to git. That was part of a bigger change to a new VCS 
>> system, admittedly, but I think this is also important. With that said, I do 
>> think we should wait and see what naming convention git / GitHub / GitLab 
>> etc. decide on. It seems like "main" has the most traction, which seems fine 
>> to me, and, as has been mentioned, is less of a misnomer anyway.
>> 
>> One argument I've seen against both of these that I don't think has been 
>> addressed in this thread is that this will set off a trend of renaming more 
>> things, mastery, masters degrees, and so on. In case it needs to be 
>> addressed, this strikes me as a slippery slope fallacy. Just because we do 
>> one thing, doesn't mean we must necessarily do another vaguely related 
>> thing. I don't see (or foresee) any interest in this, and I think as is 
>> always the case in these things, we go where the consensus is. For example, 
>> trolls aside, I don't see any criticism of e.g. Frontend Masters.
>> 
>> Just some further thoughts.
>> Tom
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 15:44, Roger Gammans  
>> wrote:
>>> Funny you should say that but the git developers mailing list in is awash 
>>> with patches and shouting about just this at the moment.
>>> 
>>> It looks likely the patches will go in too - so that's not much of an 
>>> arguement against.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 16:35 +0300, אורי wrote:
 I think *master* is the default branch name in any Git repository. It's 
 not about Django and even not GitHub. Do you want to change the default 
 branch name in Git?
 אורי
 u...@speedy.net
 
 
 On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:28 PM Tom Carrick  wrote:
> This ticket was closed wontfix 
>  as requiring a 
> discussion here.
> 
> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue 
>  stating it had been closed, 
> but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's something I 
> can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases at the 
> least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
> 
> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article 
> 
>  - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and 
> GitHub is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front 
> for these types of changes.
> 
> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use 
> that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right 
> now it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Adam Johnson]

On the branch rename, right now I'd rather wait to see what GitHub builds
that could help with this. It might allow aliasing master->main so that
existing PR's don't need targeting, local clones don't need updating, etc.
It also seems Git will make a change and it might be worth waiting to see
what that looks like.

On the blacklist/whitelist rename, I've reopened the ticket and Tim Graham
already reopened the PR.

On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 19:46, Tom Carrick  wrote:

> On moving away from the master branch, it would be a lot of effort (not
> just in the repo, but docs, Trac, etc.), but I think it's worth doing
> regardless. I think there is often some reluctance to do something
> time-consuming because it takes someone's time away from technical issues.
> I don't think this is necessarily true. Although we could always use more
> contributors, this is something that's fairly easy for a newcomer (talking
> specifically about the changes to docs). There's no requirement to know
> about ORM internals, async implementation, or anything else. Just some time
> and thoroughness. I'd be happy to put the time in, and I'm sure there are
> many other (potential) contributors willing to do so, and It doesn't stop
> the more technical people working on the issues they want to. I think all
> that is really required - if/when a decision is made, would be to review
> the PR, change the branch in Github, migrate Trac. Of course I don't know
> what else is affected, so maybe I'm being optimistic here.
>
> This does have some precedent also, there was a move from trunk to master
> when moving from SVN to git. That was part of a bigger change to a new VCS
> system, admittedly, but I think this is also important. With that said, I
> do think we should wait and see what naming convention git / GitHub /
> GitLab etc. decide on. It seems like "main" has the most traction, which
> seems fine to me, and, as has been mentioned, is less of a misnomer anyway.
>
> One argument I've seen against both of these that I don't think has been
> addressed in this thread is that this will set off a trend of renaming more
> things, mastery, masters degrees, and so on. In case it needs to be
> addressed, this strikes me as a slippery slope fallacy. Just because we do
> one thing, doesn't mean we must necessarily do another vaguely related
> thing. I don't see (or foresee) any interest in this, and I think as is
> always the case in these things, we go where the consensus is. For example,
> trolls aside, I don't see any criticism of e.g. Frontend Masters.
>
> Just some further thoughts.
> Tom
>
>
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 15:44, Roger Gammans 
> wrote:
>
>> Funny you should say that but the git developers mailing list in is awash
>> with patches and shouting about just this at the moment.
>>
>> It looks likely the patches will go in too - so that's not much of an
>> arguement against.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 16:35 +0300, אורי wrote:
>>
>> I think *master* is the default branch name in any Git repository. It's
>> not about Django and even not GitHub. Do you want to change the default
>> branch name in Git?
>> אורי
>> u...@speedy.net
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:28 PM Tom Carrick  wrote:
>>
>> This ticket was closed wontfix
>>  as requiring a
>> discussion here.
>>
>> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue
>>  stating it had been closed,
>> but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's something I
>> can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases at the
>> least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>>
>> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article
>> 
>> - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub
>> is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these
>> types of changes.
>>
>> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use
>> that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right now
>> it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind
>> of etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms
>> are as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.
>>
>> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms
>> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be
>> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also
>> worried about our credibility if we don't.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Tom Carrick]

On moving away from the master branch, it would be a lot of effort (not
just in the repo, but docs, Trac, etc.), but I think it's worth doing
regardless. I think there is often some reluctance to do something
time-consuming because it takes someone's time away from technical issues.
I don't think this is necessarily true. Although we could always use more
contributors, this is something that's fairly easy for a newcomer (talking
specifically about the changes to docs). There's no requirement to know
about ORM internals, async implementation, or anything else. Just some time
and thoroughness. I'd be happy to put the time in, and I'm sure there are
many other (potential) contributors willing to do so, and It doesn't stop
the more technical people working on the issues they want to. I think all
that is really required - if/when a decision is made, would be to review
the PR, change the branch in Github, migrate Trac. Of course I don't know
what else is affected, so maybe I'm being optimistic here.

This does have some precedent also, there was a move from trunk to master
when moving from SVN to git. That was part of a bigger change to a new VCS
system, admittedly, but I think this is also important. With that said, I
do think we should wait and see what naming convention git / GitHub /
GitLab etc. decide on. It seems like "main" has the most traction, which
seems fine to me, and, as has been mentioned, is less of a misnomer anyway.

One argument I've seen against both of these that I don't think has been
addressed in this thread is that this will set off a trend of renaming more
things, mastery, masters degrees, and so on. In case it needs to be
addressed, this strikes me as a slippery slope fallacy. Just because we do
one thing, doesn't mean we must necessarily do another vaguely related
thing. I don't see (or foresee) any interest in this, and I think as is
always the case in these things, we go where the consensus is. For example,
trolls aside, I don't see any criticism of e.g. Frontend Masters.

Just some further thoughts.
Tom


On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 15:44, Roger Gammans 
wrote:

> Funny you should say that but the git developers mailing list in is awash
> with patches and shouting about just this at the moment.
>
> It looks likely the patches will go in too - so that's not much of an
> arguement against.
>
>
> On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 16:35 +0300, אורי wrote:
>
> I think *master* is the default branch name in any Git repository. It's
> not about Django and even not GitHub. Do you want to change the default
> branch name in Git?
> אורי
> u...@speedy.net
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:28 PM Tom Carrick  wrote:
>
> This ticket was closed wontfix
>  as requiring a
> discussion here.
>
> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue
>  stating it had been closed,
> but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's something I
> can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases at the
> least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>
> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article
> 
> - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub
> is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these
> types of changes.
>
> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use
> that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right now
> it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind
> of etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms
> are as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.
>
> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms
> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be
> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also
> worried about our credibility if we don't.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/1b47e74f1811390add42c91dab4ccea104b89fcf.camel%40gammascience.co.uk
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Roger Gammans]

Funny you should say that but the git developers mailing list in is
awash with patches and shouting about just this at the moment.
It looks likely the patches will go in too -  so that's not much of an
arguement against.

On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 16:35 +0300, אורי wrote:
> I think master is the default branch name in any Git repository. It's
> not about Django and even not GitHub. Do you want to change the
> default branch name in Git?
> אורי
> u...@speedy.net
> 
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:28 PM Tom Carrick  wrote:
> > This ticket was closed wontfix as requiring a discussion here.
> > 
> > David Smith mentioned this Tox issue stating it had been closed,
> > but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's
> > something I can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add
> > aliases at the least (this is more recent than the comment on the
> > Django ticket).
> > 
> >  My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet
> > article - it seems like Google have already made moves in this
> > direction and GitHub is also planning to. Usually Django is
> > somewhere near the front for these types of changes.
> > 
> > I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we
> > use that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist,
> > though right now it seems more positive than negative. Most
> > arguments against use some kind of etymological argument, but I
> > don't think debates about historical terms are as interesting as
> > how they affect people in the here and now.
> > 
> > I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of
> > worms somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we
> > should be concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this,
> > but I'm also worried about our credibility if we don't.
> > 
> > 
> > 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/1b47e74f1811390add42c91dab4ccea104b89fcf.camel%40gammascience.co.uk.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Arvind Nedumaran]

The "default" is name is just a convention. It can be other things and after a 
few days of "teething" issues, and everyone will be back to being as productive 
as they are right now.

Sent from Outlook Mobile<https://aka.ms/blhgte>


From: django-developers@googlegroups.com  
on behalf of אורי 
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 7:05:19 PM
To: Django developers (Contributions to Django itself) 

Subject: Re: The blacklist / master issue

I think master is the default branch name in any Git repository. It's not about 
Django and even not GitHub. Do you want to change the default branch name in 
Git?
אורי
u...@speedy.net<mailto:u...@speedy.net>


On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:28 PM Tom Carrick 
mailto:t...@carrick.eu>> wrote:
This ticket was closed 
wontfix<https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/31670#ticket> as requiring a 
discussion here.

David Smith mentioned this Tox 
issue<https://github.com/tox-dev/tox/issues/1491> stating it had been closed, 
but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's something I can't 
see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases at the least (this is 
more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).

My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet 
article<https://www.zdnet.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-alternative-term-to-avoid-slavery-references/>
 - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub is 
also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these types of 
changes.

I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use that 
terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right now it seems 
more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind of 
etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms are as 
interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.

I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms 
somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be concerned 
with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also worried about our 
credibility if we don't.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAHoz%3DMZrOAQ94Whn0PpDa%2BuJzGSs%3DWAWHbO0nn8rc0D94uUAcw%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAHoz%3DMZrOAQ94Whn0PpDa%2BuJzGSs%3DWAWHbO0nn8rc0D94uUAcw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CABD5YeH3ixuxTqBvB6FdLzimDbB4D5uGHKEawwjvqXVHU%3DcvKg%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CABD5YeH3ixuxTqBvB6FdLzimDbB4D5uGHKEawwjvqXVHU%3DcvKg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/BYAPR14MB2918D1D9008D787BC2AF1F95A39D0%40BYAPR14MB2918.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[אורי]

I think *master* is the default branch name in any Git repository. It's not
about Django and even not GitHub. Do you want to change the default branch
name in Git?
אורי
u...@speedy.net


On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:28 PM Tom Carrick  wrote:

> This ticket was closed wontfix
>  as requiring a
> discussion here.
>
> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue
>  stating it had been closed,
> but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's something I
> can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases at the
> least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>
> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article
> 
> - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub
> is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these
> types of changes.
>
> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use
> that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right now
> it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind
> of etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms
> are as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.
>
> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms
> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be
> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also
> worried about our credibility if we don't.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAHoz%3DMZrOAQ94Whn0PpDa%2BuJzGSs%3DWAWHbO0nn8rc0D94uUAcw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CABD5YeH3ixuxTqBvB6FdLzimDbB4D5uGHKEawwjvqXVHU%3DcvKg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Jorge Gimeno]

I would suggest that this a relatively small change that would provide the 
community with a large return in being more inclusive.

-Jorge

On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 9:28:23 AM UTC-7, Tom Carrick wrote:
>
> This ticket was closed wontfix 
>  as requiring a 
> discussion here.
>
> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue 
>  stating it had been closed, 
> but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's something I 
> can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases at the 
> least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>
> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article 
> 
>  
> - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub 
> is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these 
> types of changes.
>
> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use 
> that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right now 
> it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind 
> of etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms 
> are as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.
>
> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms 
> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be 
> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also 
> worried about our credibility if we don't.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/ee566c2b-28c5-4845-ba94-9f9c4fe5c035o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Kye Russell]

Git’s default branch name is a bit of a misnomer, however it refers to a
master-slave relationship:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html

Kye


On 16 June 2020 at 4:24:32 pm, Fran Hrženjak (fran.hrzen...@gmail.com)
wrote:

Meaning "owner of slaves" is only one of many meanings of the word, and not
its primary meaning:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/master
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master

Renaming the master branch would mean we agree that this one meaning is
somehow more important and should be elevated above all other meanings.
Even though some of those other meanings apply much more closely in the
case of git branches:

> "having chief authority, dominant"
> "an original from which copies can be made"

To me this looks like a final revenge of the slavers. They are all long
dead and gone, their social order destroyed and condemned as it should be,
and yet here we are in 2020 giving up useful words as if only the savers'
use was correct and the rest of us were wrong ever since.

Master/slave database, that is (was) a completely different argument. But
please let's keep the master branch.

Even if the change is simple for Django and for its users, somebody made a
great point recently (on another topic here) that we cannot change the
internet. There are numerous references to "master" out there which will
become obsolete and a tripping stone for newcomers.

-0 from me.

 * What about everyones' master's degrees?
 * If a dog can have a master, then surely git branches can have a master
branch.
 * Rembrandt was a master painter.
 * Related words: masterpiece, masterful, mastery, remastered (movies),
mistress...

-- 
Fran


On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 09:10, Sanskar Jaiswal 
wrote:

> Just my 2 cents on this discussion as a junior contributor. I am very fond
> of how inclusive and progressive the Django community is.
> With that said, I believe that we shall definitely try to stop using the
> term blacklist for “bad/unwanted” things. If this change makes even only a
> few contributors, more comfortable, I think we should move forward with the
> same.
>
> Thanks
> Sanskar
>
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 12:30, Jure Erznožnik 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 on this discussion progression. I too struggled with certain
>> expressions in my earlier English-learning days, but today the used
>> expressions don't carry any unnecessary baggage for me as my understanding
>> of them is purely technical. So, while I myself don't have a problem with
>> them, I can see that others might.
>>
>> I'd also dare to say there shouldn't be much flak to take anyway. The
>> cause seems OK, but there is heightened pressure due to recent events. I
>> would say this alone is the only thing that I see might be an issue: why
>> exactly now?
>>
>> LP,
>> Jure
>> On 15/06/2020 23:31, Aymeric Augustin wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> In the context of access control, blacklist / whitelist makes sense only
>> if the reader has a preconceived assumption that black = bad, illegal,
>> forbidden / white = good, legal, authorized. You can probably see where I'm
>> going.
>>
>> Sure, blacklist / whitelist has nothing to do with race to start with,
>> but I find the parallel with Apartheid sufficiently obvious to make it
>> embarrassing, certainly because I'm not a native English speaker and I
>> don't have enough background on what has racial overtones and what doesn't.
>>
>> I mean, I had been living in the US for several months whet someone had
>> to tell me the difference between "to screw" and "to screw up". (I'm
>> grateful.) Do you really expect a guy like me to know that "blackface" has
>> racial overtones but "blacklist" doesn't, and thus interpret the words
>> correctly?
>>
>> Besides, the connection didn't exist in the first place, but when people
>> start making it, can we still pretend it doesn't exist? If I wanted to
>> troll a linguist, I'd say it's akin to pretending that words people
>> actually use don't exist until they're written in a dictionary ;-)
>>
>> Lastly, another argument for the statu quo is that humans are good at
>> interpreting words based on context, so "black" in "blacklist" isn't a
>> problem. However, I counter that humans are even better at making
>> connections and detecting patterns, even subconsciously and sometimes even
>> when the pattern doesn't actually exist. That's quite likely to happen here.
>>
>> I agree that this isn't as clear cut as master / slave. That must be why
>> it took us six years to go from the master / slave discussion to the
>> blacklist / whitelist discussion.
>>
>> No one's gonna get confused on the meaning regardless of whether we make
>> the change or not. This is "just" a political marker. It doesn't have one
>> correct answer. It has several answers whose correctness vary over time.
>>
>> I think we'll make the change at some point. Some progressives will hate
>> us for taking so much time. Some conservatives will hate us for being
>> 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Fran Hrženjak]

Meaning "owner of slaves" is only one of many meanings of the word, and not
its primary meaning:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/master
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master

Renaming the master branch would mean we agree that this one meaning is
somehow more important and should be elevated above all other meanings.
Even though some of those other meanings apply much more closely in the
case of git branches:

> "having chief authority, dominant"
> "an original from which copies can be made"

To me this looks like a final revenge of the slavers. They are all long
dead and gone, their social order destroyed and condemned as it should be,
and yet here we are in 2020 giving up useful words as if only the savers'
use was correct and the rest of us were wrong ever since.

Master/slave database, that is (was) a completely different argument. But
please let's keep the master branch.

Even if the change is simple for Django and for its users, somebody made a
great point recently (on another topic here) that we cannot change the
internet. There are numerous references to "master" out there which will
become obsolete and a tripping stone for newcomers.

-0 from me.

 * What about everyones' master's degrees?
 * If a dog can have a master, then surely git branches can have a master
branch.
 * Rembrandt was a master painter.
 * Related words: masterpiece, masterful, mastery, remastered (movies),
mistress...

-- 
Fran


On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 09:10, Sanskar Jaiswal 
wrote:

> Just my 2 cents on this discussion as a junior contributor. I am very fond
> of how inclusive and progressive the Django community is.
> With that said, I believe that we shall definitely try to stop using the
> term blacklist for “bad/unwanted” things. If this change makes even only a
> few contributors, more comfortable, I think we should move forward with the
> same.
>
> Thanks
> Sanskar
>
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 12:30, Jure Erznožnik 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 on this discussion progression. I too struggled with certain
>> expressions in my earlier English-learning days, but today the used
>> expressions don't carry any unnecessary baggage for me as my understanding
>> of them is purely technical. So, while I myself don't have a problem with
>> them, I can see that others might.
>>
>> I'd also dare to say there shouldn't be much flak to take anyway. The
>> cause seems OK, but there is heightened pressure due to recent events. I
>> would say this alone is the only thing that I see might be an issue: why
>> exactly now?
>>
>> LP,
>> Jure
>> On 15/06/2020 23:31, Aymeric Augustin wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> In the context of access control, blacklist / whitelist makes sense only
>> if the reader has a preconceived assumption that black = bad, illegal,
>> forbidden / white = good, legal, authorized. You can probably see where I'm
>> going.
>>
>> Sure, blacklist / whitelist has nothing to do with race to start with,
>> but I find the parallel with Apartheid sufficiently obvious to make it
>> embarrassing, certainly because I'm not a native English speaker and I
>> don't have enough background on what has racial overtones and what doesn't.
>>
>> I mean, I had been living in the US for several months whet someone had
>> to tell me the difference between "to screw" and "to screw up". (I'm
>> grateful.) Do you really expect a guy like me to know that "blackface" has
>> racial overtones but "blacklist" doesn't, and thus interpret the words
>> correctly?
>>
>> Besides, the connection didn't exist in the first place, but when people
>> start making it, can we still pretend it doesn't exist? If I wanted to
>> troll a linguist, I'd say it's akin to pretending that words people
>> actually use don't exist until they're written in a dictionary ;-)
>>
>> Lastly, another argument for the statu quo is that humans are good at
>> interpreting words based on context, so "black" in "blacklist" isn't a
>> problem. However, I counter that humans are even better at making
>> connections and detecting patterns, even subconsciously and sometimes even
>> when the pattern doesn't actually exist. That's quite likely to happen here.
>>
>> I agree that this isn't as clear cut as master / slave. That must be why
>> it took us six years to go from the master / slave discussion to the
>> blacklist / whitelist discussion.
>>
>> No one's gonna get confused on the meaning regardless of whether we make
>> the change or not. This is "just" a political marker. It doesn't have one
>> correct answer. It has several answers whose correctness vary over time.
>>
>> I think we'll make the change at some point. Some progressives will hate
>> us for taking so much time. Some conservatives will hate us for being
>> snowflakes. Since we already started spending time on this discussion, we
>> might just as well do the change while we're there, take some flak for a
>> couple days, and move on.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> --
>> Aymeric.
>>
>> On 15 Jun 2020, at 21:56, Daniele 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Sanskar Jaiswal]

Just my 2 cents on this discussion as a junior contributor. I am very fond
of how inclusive and progressive the Django community is.
With that said, I believe that we shall definitely try to stop using the
term blacklist for “bad/unwanted” things. If this change makes even only a
few contributors, more comfortable, I think we should move forward with the
same.

Thanks
Sanskar

On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 12:30, Jure Erznožnik 
wrote:

> +1 on this discussion progression. I too struggled with certain
> expressions in my earlier English-learning days, but today the used
> expressions don't carry any unnecessary baggage for me as my understanding
> of them is purely technical. So, while I myself don't have a problem with
> them, I can see that others might.
>
> I'd also dare to say there shouldn't be much flak to take anyway. The
> cause seems OK, but there is heightened pressure due to recent events. I
> would say this alone is the only thing that I see might be an issue: why
> exactly now?
>
> LP,
> Jure
> On 15/06/2020 23:31, Aymeric Augustin wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> In the context of access control, blacklist / whitelist makes sense only
> if the reader has a preconceived assumption that black = bad, illegal,
> forbidden / white = good, legal, authorized. You can probably see where I'm
> going.
>
> Sure, blacklist / whitelist has nothing to do with race to start with, but
> I find the parallel with Apartheid sufficiently obvious to make it
> embarrassing, certainly because I'm not a native English speaker and I
> don't have enough background on what has racial overtones and what doesn't.
>
> I mean, I had been living in the US for several months whet someone had to
> tell me the difference between "to screw" and "to screw up". (I'm
> grateful.) Do you really expect a guy like me to know that "blackface" has
> racial overtones but "blacklist" doesn't, and thus interpret the words
> correctly?
>
> Besides, the connection didn't exist in the first place, but when people
> start making it, can we still pretend it doesn't exist? If I wanted to
> troll a linguist, I'd say it's akin to pretending that words people
> actually use don't exist until they're written in a dictionary ;-)
>
> Lastly, another argument for the statu quo is that humans are good at
> interpreting words based on context, so "black" in "blacklist" isn't a
> problem. However, I counter that humans are even better at making
> connections and detecting patterns, even subconsciously and sometimes even
> when the pattern doesn't actually exist. That's quite likely to happen here.
>
> I agree that this isn't as clear cut as master / slave. That must be why
> it took us six years to go from the master / slave discussion to the
> blacklist / whitelist discussion.
>
> No one's gonna get confused on the meaning regardless of whether we make
> the change or not. This is "just" a political marker. It doesn't have one
> correct answer. It has several answers whose correctness vary over time.
>
> I think we'll make the change at some point. Some progressives will hate
> us for taking so much time. Some conservatives will hate us for being
> snowflakes. Since we already started spending time on this discussion, we
> might just as well do the change while we're there, take some flak for a
> couple days, and move on.
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
> Aymeric.
>
> On 15 Jun 2020, at 21:56, Daniele Procida  wrote:
>
> Tom Carrick wrote:
>
> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms
> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be
> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also
> worried about our credibility if we don't.
>
>
> There are plenty of black-something terms in English that are both
> negative and have nothing whatsoever to do with race. The black and the
> dark are those things that are hidden and sinister, as contrasted with
> those that are in the light and open to scrutiny (black magic, dark arts,
> black legs, blackguards, blackmail, etc).
>
> I think it would look pretty silly to confuse meanings that refer to
> what's shadowy and obscure with things that have racial overtones, and I
> think we should steer well clear of that. It's not at all like metaphors
> such as master/slave.
>
> If we made such a change and tried to justify it on the grounds of a
> connection between race and the word "black" in those terms, we'd be
> rightly laughed at.
>
> 1000 neckbeards would immediately come out of the woodwork having done
> some basic web searches going 'neeer neeer neeer, the Django Software
> Foundation overflowing with snowflakes who think that "blacklist" means
> [etc etc etc]', and who has the stomach for that?
>
> Even choosing to do it on the basis of the potential for offence seems to
> be a fairly flimsy argument.
>
> On the other hand, we can do whatever the hell we like.
>
> We don't have to justify anything to anyone. If we want to change words in
> *our* framework, it's 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Claude Paroz]

Note that the term "blacklist" only appears twice in the Django tree and 
only in comments/docs, as shown by David's patch. The first one can be 
omitted while the second one can be replaced by "exclude". That is trivial 
to do and shouldn't even require a discussion.

About replacing "whitelist" par "allowlist", I'm not totally convinced but 
will accept any community decision. It has a very small impact change in 
code (in EmailValidator).

Changing git "master" branch names is really looking ridiculous to me, but 
I can understand that it might be linked to cultural sensibilities. This 
will generate many work overhead, for what gain? A "master" is a totally 
valid word in many contexts that have nothing to do with slavery.
We should primarily fight against racism by education and our own 
day-to-day behavior.

Claude

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/d327c497-18f7-4b50-8b38-93b0c0bea330o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Jure Erznožnik]

+1 on this discussion progression. I too struggled with certain 
expressions in my earlier English-learning days, but today the used 
expressions don't carry any unnecessary baggage for me as my 
understanding of them is purely technical. So, while I myself don't have 
a problem with them, I can see that others might.


I'd also dare to say there shouldn't be much flak to take anyway. The 
cause seems OK, but there is heightened pressure due to recent events. I 
would say this alone is the only thing that I see might be an issue: why 
exactly now?


LP,
Jure

On 15/06/2020 23:31, Aymeric Augustin wrote:

Hello,

In the context of access control, blacklist / whitelist makes sense 
only if the reader has a preconceived assumption that black = bad, 
illegal, forbidden / white = good, legal, authorized. You can probably 
see where I'm going.


Sure, blacklist / whitelist has nothing to do with race to start with, 
but I find the parallel with Apartheid sufficiently obvious to make it 
embarrassing, certainly because I'm not a native English speaker and I 
don't have enough background on what has racial overtones and what 
doesn't.


I mean, I had been living in the US for several months whet someone 
had to tell me the difference between "to screw" and "to screw up". 
(I'm grateful.) Do you really expect a guy like me to know that 
"blackface" has racial overtones but "blacklist" doesn't, and thus 
interpret the words correctly?


Besides, the connection didn't exist in the first place, but when 
people start making it, can we still pretend it doesn't exist? If I 
wanted to troll a linguist, I'd say it's akin to pretending that words 
people actually use don't exist until they're written in a dictionary ;-)


Lastly, another argument for the statu quo is that humans are good at 
interpreting words based on context, so "black" in "blacklist" isn't a 
problem. However, I counter that humans are even better at making 
connections and detecting patterns, even subconsciously and sometimes 
even when the pattern doesn't actually exist. That's quite likely to 
happen here.


I agree that this isn't as clear cut as master / slave. That must be 
why it took us six years to go from the master / slave discussion to 
the blacklist / whitelist discussion.


No one's gonna get confused on the meaning regardless of whether we 
make the change or not. This is "just" a political marker. It doesn't 
have one correct answer. It has several answers whose correctness vary 
over time.


I think we'll make the change at some point. Some progressives will 
hate us for taking so much time. Some conservatives will hate us for 
being snowflakes. Since we already started spending time on this 
discussion, we might just as well do the change while we're there, 
take some flak for a couple days, and move on.


Best regards,

--
Aymeric.

On 15 Jun 2020, at 21:56, Daniele Procida > wrote:


Tom Carrick wrote:


I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms
somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be
concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also
worried about our credibility if we don't.


There are plenty of black-something terms in English that are both 
negative and have nothing whatsoever to do with race. The black and 
the dark are those things that are hidden and sinister, as contrasted 
with those that are in the light and open to scrutiny (black magic, 
dark arts, black legs, blackguards, blackmail, etc).


I think it would look pretty silly to confuse meanings that refer to 
what's shadowy and obscure with things that have racial overtones, 
and I think we should steer well clear of that. It's not at all like 
metaphors such as master/slave.


If we made such a change and tried to justify it on the grounds of a 
connection between race and the word "black" in those terms, we'd be 
rightly laughed at.


1000 neckbeards would immediately come out of the woodwork having 
done some basic web searches going 'neeer neeer neeer, the Django 
Software Foundation overflowing with snowflakes who think that 
"blacklist" means [etc etc etc]', and who has the stomach for that?


Even choosing to do it on the basis of the potential for offence 
seems to be a fairly flimsy argument.


On the other hand, we can do whatever the hell we like.

We don't have to justify anything to anyone. If we want to change 
words in *our* framework, it's absolutely nobody's business but our own.


If black members of the DSF or the community are disheartened that 
the word "black" gets to refer to so many negative things and are 
bothered when they see them in Django, then that alone is sufficient 
justification.


If we want a reason for changing "blacklist" (or whatever), it's that 
people in our community said they would feel better about it and 
asked to have it changed.


Acknowledging how someone feels about something and acting because 
you care about their 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Ngazetungue Muheue]

 

The Django it is a community framework and we have to pay attention to 
that. History play a major role in our daily lives and we have to avoid any 
word that have racial connection. Django community is growing fast in 
Africa and we hate things that taking us back to Apartheid/Slave era since 
we believe in spirit of Ubuntu.


If the black community think certain words in English make them feel less 
welcome and they can justify that, please let’s change it or simply we can 
do whatever we like to our framework. We don't have to justify anything to 
anyone, we’re doing what we think it is best for our community and future 
Developers. Personally I think we should do our best to adopt neutral 
language that would be accepted by our community of black, white or 
whatsoever.


Words like Blacklist should be avoid at all cost. I would go for deny list 
or deny instead of Blacklist and Allow list or accept instead of White-list.


At beginning I was bothered by the word Blacklist until I get use to it, we 
don’t use it at the region where I came from because of the history. Let’s 
make the documentation more inclusive, and clearer. If there is something 
that needs to be changed let’s just do it while it is early. 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/508a4a79-97d9-4cda-bcfe-9deaf430abc9o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Jeff Triplett]

Agreed. I thought DHH's argument was equally as compelling for making this 
change for rails: 

Regardless of origin, allow/deny are simply clearer terms that does not 
> require tracing the history of black/white as representations of that 
> meaning. We can simply use the meaning directly.


https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/33677#issuecomment-414873738


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/dcdbf5dd-edb9-443f-a24d-9cd0e05441d7o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Curtis Maloney]

Just my small contribution to the discussion...

Independent of "social" aspects to the choice of words, the move towards "self 
explanatory terminology" is preferable, IMHO.

As an example, it takes less mental effort or historical context to know what 
an "allow_list" is compared to a "whitelist".

Same argument was involved in changing the terminology we used for replicated 
databases. It made sense then, it makes sense now.

--
Curtis

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/a4ce1855-8974-4eed-9121-99983e8cf742%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Drew Winstel]

On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 2:56:45 PM UTC-5, Daniele Procida wrote:
>
> We don't have to justify anything to anyone. If we want to change words in 
> *our* framework, it's absolutely nobody's business but our own. 
>
> If black members of the DSF or the community are disheartened that the 
> word "black" gets to refer to so many negative things and are bothered when 
> they see them in Django, then that alone is sufficient justification. 
>
> If we want a reason for changing "blacklist" (or whatever), it's that 
> people in our community said they would feel better about it and asked to 
> have it changed. 
>
> Acknowledging how someone feels about something and acting because you 
> care about their feelings seems to be a respectful thing to do. 
>
> "We did it because we felt like it" is an utterly unanswerable 
> justification. 
>
> The DSF has credibility because the software is first rate, the foundation 
> is well-governed and the community is an international example of decency 
> and kindness. Things like this become credible because the DSF chooses to 
> do them - it's not the other way round. 
>


Strong +1 to this. Very well put, Daniele. 

Drew

(2019 DjangoCon US Opportunity Grants Chair, for those who may not know me)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/4337e473-a20b-4067-b479-7420e5e504dao%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Aymeric Augustin]

Hello,

In the context of access control, blacklist / whitelist makes sense only if the 
reader has a preconceived assumption that black = bad, illegal, forbidden / 
white = good, legal, authorized. You can probably see where I'm going.

Sure, blacklist / whitelist has nothing to do with race to start with, but I 
find the parallel with Apartheid sufficiently obvious to make it embarrassing, 
certainly because I'm not a native English speaker and I don't have enough 
background on what has racial overtones and what doesn't.

I mean, I had been living in the US for several months whet someone had to tell 
me the difference between "to screw" and "to screw up". (I'm grateful.) Do you 
really expect a guy like me to know that "blackface" has racial overtones but 
"blacklist" doesn't, and thus interpret the words correctly?

Besides, the connection didn't exist in the first place, but when people start 
making it, can we still pretend it doesn't exist? If I wanted to troll a 
linguist, I'd say it's akin to pretending that words people actually use don't 
exist until they're written in a dictionary ;-)

Lastly, another argument for the statu quo is that humans are good at 
interpreting words based on context, so "black" in "blacklist" isn't a problem. 
However, I counter that humans are even better at making connections and 
detecting patterns, even subconsciously and sometimes even when the pattern 
doesn't actually exist. That's quite likely to happen here.

I agree that this isn't as clear cut as master / slave. That must be why it 
took us six years to go from the master / slave discussion to the blacklist / 
whitelist discussion.

No one's gonna get confused on the meaning regardless of whether we make the 
change or not. This is "just" a political marker. It doesn't have one correct 
answer. It has several answers whose correctness vary over time.

I think we'll make the change at some point. Some progressives will hate us for 
taking so much time. Some conservatives will hate us for being snowflakes. 
Since we already started spending time on this discussion, we might just as 
well do the change while we're there, take some flak for a couple days, and 
move on.

Best regards,

-- 
Aymeric.

> On 15 Jun 2020, at 21:56, Daniele Procida  wrote:
> 
> Tom Carrick wrote:
> 
>> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms
>> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be
>> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also
>> worried about our credibility if we don't.
> 
> There are plenty of black-something terms in English that are both negative 
> and have nothing whatsoever to do with race. The black and the dark are those 
> things that are hidden and sinister, as contrasted with those that are in the 
> light and open to scrutiny (black magic, dark arts, black legs, blackguards, 
> blackmail, etc).
> 
> I think it would look pretty silly to confuse meanings that refer to what's 
> shadowy and obscure with things that have racial overtones, and I think we 
> should steer well clear of that. It's not at all like metaphors such as 
> master/slave. 
> 
> If we made such a change and tried to justify it on the grounds of a 
> connection between race and the word "black" in those terms, we'd be rightly 
> laughed at.
> 
> 1000 neckbeards would immediately come out of the woodwork having done some 
> basic web searches going 'neeer neeer neeer, the Django Software Foundation 
> overflowing with snowflakes who think that "blacklist" means [etc etc etc]', 
> and who has the stomach for that? 
> 
> Even choosing to do it on the basis of the potential for offence seems to be 
> a fairly flimsy argument.
> 
> On the other hand, we can do whatever the hell we like. 
> 
> We don't have to justify anything to anyone. If we want to change words in 
> *our* framework, it's absolutely nobody's business but our own.
> 
> If black members of the DSF or the community are disheartened that the word 
> "black" gets to refer to so many negative things and are bothered when they 
> see them in Django, then that alone is sufficient justification. 
> 
> If we want a reason for changing "blacklist" (or whatever), it's that people 
> in our community said they would feel better about it and asked to have it 
> changed. 
> 
> Acknowledging how someone feels about something and acting because you care 
> about their feelings seems to be a respectful thing to do.
> 
> "We did it because we felt like it" is an utterly unanswerable justification.
> 
> The DSF has credibility because the software is first rate, the foundation is 
> well-governed and the community is an international example of decency and 
> kindness. Things like this become credible because the DSF chooses to do them 
> - it's not the other way round.
> 
> Daniele
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Markus Holtermann]

I'd be in favor of changing blacklist/whitelist into something that makes 
sense. In many cases, that's going to be context dependent, but often 
blocklist/allowlist will work.

With regards to "master" as the development branch on GitHub, I'd like to pick 
whatever GitHub eventually goes with as a "new default".

Cheers,

Markus

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020, at 9:56 PM, Daniele Procida wrote:
> Tom Carrick wrote:
> 
> >I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms
> >somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be
> >concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also
> >worried about our credibility if we don't.
> 
> There are plenty of black-something terms in English that are both 
> negative and have nothing whatsoever to do with race. The black and the 
> dark are those things that are hidden and sinister, as contrasted with 
> those that are in the light and open to scrutiny (black magic, dark 
> arts, black legs, blackguards, blackmail, etc).
> 
> I think it would look pretty silly to confuse meanings that refer to 
> what's shadowy and obscure with things that have racial overtones, and 
> I think we should steer well clear of that. It's not at all like 
> metaphors such as master/slave. 
> 
> If we made such a change and tried to justify it on the grounds of a 
> connection between race and the word "black" in those terms, we'd be 
> rightly laughed at.
> 
> 1000 neckbeards would immediately come out of the woodwork having done 
> some basic web searches going 'neeer neeer neeer, the Django Software 
> Foundation overflowing with snowflakes who think that "blacklist" means 
> [etc etc etc]', and who has the stomach for that? 
> 
> Even choosing to do it on the basis of the potential for offence seems 
> to be a fairly flimsy argument.
> 
> On the other hand, we can do whatever the hell we like. 
> 
> We don't have to justify anything to anyone. If we want to change words 
> in *our* framework, it's absolutely nobody's business but our own.
> 
> If black members of the DSF or the community are disheartened that the 
> word "black" gets to refer to so many negative things and are bothered 
> when they see them in Django, then that alone is sufficient 
> justification. 
> 
> If we want a reason for changing "blacklist" (or whatever), it's that 
> people in our community said they would feel better about it and asked 
> to have it changed. 
> 
> Acknowledging how someone feels about something and acting because you 
> care about their feelings seems to be a respectful thing to do.
> 
> "We did it because we felt like it" is an utterly unanswerable justification.
> 
> The DSF has credibility because the software is first rate, the 
> foundation is well-governed and the community is an international 
> example of decency and kindness. Things like this become credible 
> because the DSF chooses to do them - it's not the other way round.
> 
> Daniele
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20200615195628.938692561%40mail.gandi.net.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/64e1b503-289c-4119-acfc-51fe6537addb%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Kenneth Love]

I don't participate in this list much but this is a solid +1 from me. We 
should do our best to adopt neutral language. Etymology/history is 
important, yes, but much less important that current impact and usage.

On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 9:28:23 AM UTC-7, Tom Carrick wrote:
>
> This ticket was closed wontfix 
>  as requiring a 
> discussion here.
>
> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue 
>  stating it had been closed, 
> but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's something I 
> can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases at the 
> least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>
> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article 
> 
>  
> - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub 
> is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these 
> types of changes.
>
> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and wherever else we use 
> that terminology, but I'm less sure about black/whitelist, though right now 
> it seems more positive than negative. Most arguments against use some kind 
> of etymological argument, but I don't think debates about historical terms 
> are as interesting as how they affect people in the here and now.
>
> I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms 
> somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be 
> concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also 
> worried about our credibility if we don't.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/e953efe9-2d14-4256-ae8c-7bee4a0ac4c2o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Daniele Procida]

Tom Carrick wrote:

>I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I open this can of worms
>somewhat reluctantly. I do think Luke is correct that we should be
>concerned with our credibility if we wrongly change this, but I'm also
>worried about our credibility if we don't.

There are plenty of black-something terms in English that are both negative and 
have nothing whatsoever to do with race. The black and the dark are those 
things that are hidden and sinister, as contrasted with those that are in the 
light and open to scrutiny (black magic, dark arts, black legs, blackguards, 
blackmail, etc).

I think it would look pretty silly to confuse meanings that refer to what's 
shadowy and obscure with things that have racial overtones, and I think we 
should steer well clear of that. It's not at all like metaphors such as 
master/slave. 

If we made such a change and tried to justify it on the grounds of a connection 
between race and the word "black" in those terms, we'd be rightly laughed at.

1000 neckbeards would immediately come out of the woodwork having done some 
basic web searches going 'neeer neeer neeer, the Django Software Foundation 
overflowing with snowflakes who think that "blacklist" means [etc etc etc]', 
and who has the stomach for that? 

Even choosing to do it on the basis of the potential for offence seems to be a 
fairly flimsy argument.

On the other hand, we can do whatever the hell we like. 

We don't have to justify anything to anyone. If we want to change words in 
*our* framework, it's absolutely nobody's business but our own.

If black members of the DSF or the community are disheartened that the word 
"black" gets to refer to so many negative things and are bothered when they see 
them in Django, then that alone is sufficient justification. 

If we want a reason for changing "blacklist" (or whatever), it's that people in 
our community said they would feel better about it and asked to have it 
changed. 

Acknowledging how someone feels about something and acting because you care 
about their feelings seems to be a respectful thing to do.

"We did it because we felt like it" is an utterly unanswerable justification.

The DSF has credibility because the software is first rate, the foundation is 
well-governed and the community is an international example of decency and 
kindness. Things like this become credible because the DSF chooses to do them - 
it's not the other way round.

Daniele

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20200615195628.938692561%40mail.gandi.net.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[René Fleschenberg]

Hi,

just my 2 cents:

While I am generally critical of changing language to achieve social
progress, I see no harm in using "main", "develop" or something like
that instead of "master". There might be a tool or two out there that
treat "master" specially, but I can't think of anything that would
directly affect Django. If Github is going to settle for "main", it will
likely become the new convention, so maybe Django should pick that one?

allow_list / deny_list is a similar case. I see no advantage in keeping
the current names. To me, allow_list / deny_list is at least as clear as
white_list / black_list.

When Django directly references externally defined technical terms (e.g.
underlying APIs), I think more consideration is needed. For RFC 5782, I
think that is not the case.

Regards,
René

-- 
René Fleschenberg

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/7d0f24b3-e042-0964-6be0-6689fc930af1%40fleschenberg.net.

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Carlton Gibson]

My initial response on the original PR was, looking it up, that “blacklist”
wasn’t a race-related term. I then said, unless there are additional uses...

It seems there are.

In which case this seems a no-brainer. We should use better words. That’s
an easy change.

+1

On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 19:05, Adam Johnson  wrote:

> I was preparing a post on this Tom, it was sitting in my drafts awaiting a
> little more research, but here we go.
>
> My summary:
>
> This small language change has been suggested many times in the technology
> sphere for two reasons. First, the allow/deny terms avoid the potentially
> offensive assocation of white = accept and black = reject. Second, the
> allow and deny are clearer to those who don't know them, reducing
> comprehension time and potential bugs.
>
> Making this change in Django's documentation was originally suggested in a
> PR by David Smith in April: https://github.com/django/django/pull/12755 .
> Carlton and I closed the PR due to lack of discussion at the time. Carlton
> also brought up the argument that it can be useful to keep our terminology
> in line with RFC's.
>
> Current context
>
> I've seen this change supported a few times on Twitter recently, most
> notably by Django co-creator Simon Willison. I therefore opened the
> aforementioned ticket to revive the change.
>
> We'd be far from alone in making this change. Here are some projects with
> some association to Django that have made the change
>
>- Apache Web server (2018):
>https://twitter.com/rbowen/status/1269346035652005890
>- IETF draft RFC (2018):
>https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html#rfc.section.1.2
>(Thi
>- Google Developer Style guide:
>https://developers.google.com/style/word-list#blacklist (and by
>extension, Go Lang in https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/236857/
>and Chromium in
>https://www.theregister.com/2019/09/03/chromium_microsoft_offensive/ )
>- Ruby on Rails (2018): https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/33677
>- UK National Cyber Security Centre (2020):
>https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/terminology-its-not-black-and-white
>
> (The Google Developer style guide page on inclusive documentation is worth
> reading and I think we could have our own similar page of guidelines:
> https://developers.google.com/style/inclusive-documentation .)
>
> Django has a history of being an open source project that updates its
> documentation to use more inclusive language. Six years ago we changed
> master/slave (databases) to leader/follower in
> https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692 . We lead the way here and
> other notable projects have cited Django in their own changes, such as
> Drupal ( https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/issues/2275877 ).
>
> I like Flavio's response on the ticket:
>
>>  I think all the etymological and linguist discussion detracts from the
>> actual issue that we are trying to solve.
>>
>> I would argue that it does not matter where words come from, or how we,
>> the privileged people, interpret them. The only questions we need to answer
>> are:
>>
>> Do these words makes Black people less welcome?
>> Would replacing them be an improvement for them?
>>
>> Then we can evaluate how hard it would be to change, and compare it to
>> how much we value their experience.
>>
>> Instead of focusing on logic and prior knowledge, let's focus on future
>> developer experience.
>>
>
> I am not a linguistic expert nor do I know if anyone has actually found
> the language off-putting. But I do think there's evidence it has, and we
> should be trying to make our documentation as inclusive as possible.
>
> I don't think the argument to keep aligned with RFC's holds much weight.
> There's a draft RFC to change the language there. If there's a big concern
> the new terms will not be fluent for existing developers, we can follow the
> pattern recommended by the Google inclusvie guide of using a commonly known
> but insensitive term in parentheses:
>
> This might require you to fence failed nodes (sometimes referred to as
>> STONITH).
>>
>
> That said, "allow list" is clearer than"white list" so I don't think this
> is likely to be a problem.
>
> The PR is quite a small change and pretty much ready to be merged (
> https://github.com/django/django/pull/13031 ). I don't think we need a
> big debate but judging from the previous master/slave change, there will be
> a lot of reactions (that PR is probably the most commented on Django
> change, with 719 comments).
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 17:27, Tom Carrick  wrote:
>
>> This ticket was closed wontfix
>>  as requiring a
>> discussion here.
>>
>> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue
>>  stating it had been closed,
>> but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's something I
>> can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases at the
>> 

Re: The blacklist / master issue

[Adam Johnson]

I was preparing a post on this Tom, it was sitting in my drafts awaiting a
little more research, but here we go.

My summary:

This small language change has been suggested many times in the technology
sphere for two reasons. First, the allow/deny terms avoid the potentially
offensive assocation of white = accept and black = reject. Second, the
allow and deny are clearer to those who don't know them, reducing
comprehension time and potential bugs.

Making this change in Django's documentation was originally suggested in a
PR by David Smith in April: https://github.com/django/django/pull/12755 .
Carlton and I closed the PR due to lack of discussion at the time. Carlton
also brought up the argument that it can be useful to keep our terminology
in line with RFC's.

Current context

I've seen this change supported a few times on Twitter recently, most
notably by Django co-creator Simon Willison. I therefore opened the
aforementioned ticket to revive the change.

We'd be far from alone in making this change. Here are some projects with
some association to Django that have made the change

   - Apache Web server (2018):
   https://twitter.com/rbowen/status/1269346035652005890
   - IETF draft RFC (2018):
   https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html#rfc.section.1.2
   (Thi
   - Google Developer Style guide:
   https://developers.google.com/style/word-list#blacklist (and by
   extension, Go Lang in https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/236857/
   and Chromium in
   https://www.theregister.com/2019/09/03/chromium_microsoft_offensive/ )
   - Ruby on Rails (2018): https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/33677
   - UK National Cyber Security Centre (2020):
   https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/terminology-its-not-black-and-white

(The Google Developer style guide page on inclusive documentation is worth
reading and I think we could have our own similar page of guidelines:
https://developers.google.com/style/inclusive-documentation .)

Django has a history of being an open source project that updates its
documentation to use more inclusive language. Six years ago we changed
master/slave (databases) to leader/follower in
https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692 . We lead the way here and other
notable projects have cited Django in their own changes, such as Drupal (
https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/issues/2275877 ).

I like Flavio's response on the ticket:

>  I think all the etymological and linguist discussion detracts from the
> actual issue that we are trying to solve.
>
> I would argue that it does not matter where words come from, or how we,
> the privileged people, interpret them. The only questions we need to answer
> are:
>
> Do these words makes Black people less welcome?
> Would replacing them be an improvement for them?
>
> Then we can evaluate how hard it would be to change, and compare it to how
> much we value their experience.
>
> Instead of focusing on logic and prior knowledge, let's focus on future
> developer experience.
>

I am not a linguistic expert nor do I know if anyone has actually found the
language off-putting. But I do think there's evidence it has, and we should
be trying to make our documentation as inclusive as possible.

I don't think the argument to keep aligned with RFC's holds much weight.
There's a draft RFC to change the language there. If there's a big concern
the new terms will not be fluent for existing developers, we can follow the
pattern recommended by the Google inclusvie guide of using a commonly known
but insensitive term in parentheses:

This might require you to fence failed nodes (sometimes referred to as
> STONITH).
>

That said, "allow list" is clearer than"white list" so I don't think this
is likely to be a problem.

The PR is quite a small change and pretty much ready to be merged (
https://github.com/django/django/pull/13031 ). I don't think we need a big
debate but judging from the previous master/slave change, there will be a
lot of reactions (that PR is probably the most commented on Django change,
with 719 comments).

On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 17:27, Tom Carrick  wrote:

> This ticket was closed wontfix
>  as requiring a
> discussion here.
>
> David Smith mentioned this Tox issue
>  stating it had been closed,
> but to me it seems like it hasn't been closed (maybe there's something I
> can't see) and apparently a PR would be accepted to add aliases at the
> least (this is more recent than the comment on the Django ticket).
>
> My impetus to bring this up mostly comes from reading this ZDNet article
> 
> - it seems like Google have already made moves in this direction and GitHub
> is also planning to. Usually Django is somewhere near the front for these
> types of changes.
>
> I'm leaning towards renaming the master branch and