Language is always changing and the meaning of words is changing, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively. I think that now is time for change again and we should discuss the use of phrases and meanings.
Of course we should change "Master Branch" to "Main Branch". But I also think that we shouldn't just make quick changes because it's opportune and hastily change a few words. An example: We could change Master/Slave to Leader/Follower. This may be a perfect choice for most people in the world. In German Leader is the English word for "Führer". And it is precisely this word that we in Germany do not actually want to use for it. What I mean is that every country and every group (e.g. religion etc.) has its own history and certain words or phrases are just not a perfect choice. We should try to go the ethically correct way worldwide. This concerns the adaptation of current words and phrases with a view to all: in English, Indian, Chinese, German etc. but also for indigenous peoples, different religions etc. And cultural differences should also be taken into account. What I would wish for: Apache.org should set up an "Ethics Board". A group of people of different genders, all colors, religions and from different countries and cultures all over our world. This Ethics Board should find good and for no one discriminating words or phrases for all the areas that stand out today as offensive. And it would be nice if not only computer scientists participated, but also ethicists, philosophers, engineers, various religious people, chemists, biologists, physicists, sociologists, etc. And this Council should set binding targets for all projects. Am 18.06.2020 um 09:36 schrieb Pierre Villard: >> In my perspective this should be an issue for the entire community. Being >> able to identify an issue that directly affects another person but not >> one’s self is the definition of privilege. If I can look at how the use of >> these words in someone’s daily life or career impacts them negatively, > when >> the change would not harm me at all, I see that as a failure on my part. I >> understand the desire to hear from the silent majority, but active >> participation and discussion on the mailing list is the exact measure >> described by the Apache process for participation in the community. Those >> who speak here are the ones who will have a voice. > I could not agree more with the above. > > Le jeu. 18 juin 2020 à 04:29, Tony Kurc <tk...@apache.org> a écrit : > >> I suppose I was a bit remiss in not unwinding and/or summarizing some of >> what was in that yetus thread to prime the discussion, but a some of what >> Andy is mentioning is expanded on a bit in this ietf document [1], which is >> linked in one of the articles. >> >> 1. https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 10:02 PM Andy LoPresto <alopre...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Edward, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’ll reply inline. >>> >>>> - Some of the terms proposed are not industry standard and may >>> potentially >>>> cause significant issue for non-english speakers. >>> I actually believe making these changes will _improve_ the clarity for >>> non-english speakers. “Whitelist” and “blacklist” confer no inherent >> reason >>> to mean allow and deny other than connotative biases. “Allow” and “deny” >>> explicitly indicate the verb that is happening. Another example is branch >>> naming. “Masters” don’t have “branches”. “Trunks” do. These terms make >>> _more_ sense for a non-English speaker than the current terms. >>> >>>> - For each change that is made can we guarantee that we will not lose >>>> clarity of meaning, and then have revert the change down the line if >> the >>>> change causes a drop in usage. >>> I don’t expect the community will opt to change the new terms back to >> ones >>> with negative connotations in the future. If there is discussion about >> it, >>> this thread will provide good historical context for why the decision was >>> made to change it, just as the mailing list discussions do for other code >>> changes. >>> >>>> - Of what percentage of people is this truly an issue for and what >>>> percentage isn't. Any change that has the potential to cause a major >>> split >>>> in the community, there must be as close as possible to a majority, and >>> not >>>> just from those that are vocal and active on the mailing lists. >>>> Disscustions on other groups are turning toxic, and in some cases are >>>> potentially leading to the collapse of these projects where these >> changes >>>> are being implemented with what appears to be without the agreement of >> a >>>> signifficant chunk of the community. >>>> >>> In my perspective this should be an issue for the entire community. Being >>> able to identify an issue that directly affects another person but not >>> one’s self is the definition of privilege. If I can look at how the use >> of >>> these words in someone’s daily life or career impacts them negatively, >> when >>> the change would not harm me at all, I see that as a failure on my part. >> I >>> understand the desire to hear from the silent majority, but active >>> participation and discussion on the mailing list is the exact measure >>> described by the Apache process for participation in the community. Those >>> who speak here are the ones who will have a voice. >>> >>>> - From a personal perspective, I sit on the autism spectrum and have >>> grown >>>> up with people using words that are very offensive and have hurt me >>> badly. >>>> Instead of having these words as offensive and untouchable. Myself and >>>> others have instead made these words our own and made them lose the >>>> negative connotations they have. As such, I do find the current >>>> disscustions deeply alarming and feels like they start to border into >> the >>>> realm of censorship. >>>> >>> I think it’s admirable that you have responded to negative circumstances >>> in that way. I also recognize that not everyone has that opportunity. If >> we >>> can take these actions as a community to improve the experience for >> others, >>> I am in favor of that. >>> >>>> - One final point (and potentially controversial), A good chunk of the >>>> wording that is proposed to be changed. Is being done so on the >>>> "modern"/"street" definition of these words and not the actual >>> definition. >>>> Language should change and evolve to introduce clarity, but right now >>> does >>>> this change improve the clarity across the engineering sector and I >>> believe >>>> it won't. >>> >>> I’ll paraphrase Emily Kager here with “developers spend an inordinate >>> amount of time and energy arguing about the meaning and semantics of >>> variable and method names, but pretend exclusionary terms are >> meaningless.” >>> [1] If we can expend that much energy deciding if a method creates vs. >>> builds vs. forms an imaginary concept like a >>> LibraryFrameworkWrapperDecorator, I refuse to concede that we can and in >>> fact should do so with the terms that actually affect our community >>> members’ lives. >>> >>> [1] https://twitter.com/EmilyKager/status/1271102865889734656 < >>> https://twitter.com/EmilyKager/status/1271102865889734656> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Andy LoPresto >>> alopre...@apache.org >>> alopresto.apa...@gmail.com >>> He/Him >>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 >>> >>>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 6:43 PM, Edward Armes <edward.ar...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> This is a difficult issue and causes no small amount of friction every >>>> time. I'm personally against this for the following reassons: >>>> >>>> - Some of the terms proposed are not industry standard and may >>> potentially >>>> cause significant issue for non-english speakers. >>>> >>>> - For each change that is made can we guarantee that we will not lose >>>> clarity of meaning, and then have revert the change down the line if >> the >>>> change causes a drop in usage. >>>> >>>> - Of what percentage of people is this truly an issue for and what >>>> percentage isn't. Any change that has the potential to cause a major >>> split >>>> in the community, there must be as close as possible to a majority, and >>> not >>>> just from those that are vocal and active on the mailing lists. >>>> Disscustions on other groups are turning toxic, and in some cases are >>>> potentially leading to the collapse of these projects where these >> changes >>>> are being implemented with what appears to be without the agreement of >> a >>>> signifficant chunk of the community. >>>> >>>> - From a personal perspective, I sit on the autism spectrum and have >>> grown >>>> up with people using words that are very offensive and have hurt me >>> badly. >>>> Instead of having these words as offensive and untouchable. Myself and >>>> others have instead made these words our own and made them lose the >>>> negative connotations they have. As such, I do find the current >>>> disscustions deeply alarming and feels like they start to border into >> the >>>> realm of censorship. >>>> >>>> - One final point (and potentially controversial), A good chunk of the >>>> wording that is proposed to be changed. Is being done so on the >>>> "modern"/"street" definition of these words and not the actual >>> definition. >>>> Language should change and evolve to introduce clarity, but right now >>> does >>>> this change improve the clarity across the engineering sector and I >>> believe >>>> it won't. >>>> >>>> Edward >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, 01:11 Andy LoPresto, <alopre...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>>>> I am a proponent of making this change and also using allow/deny list, >>>>> meddler-in-the-middle, etc. >>>>> >>>>> Here is a blog [1] with easy instructions for executing the change in >>> git, >>>>> although I don’t know if there is any Apache-integration specific >>> changes >>>>> we would also need. >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> >> https://www.hanselman.com/blog/EasilyRenameYourGitDefaultBranchFromMasterToMain.aspx >>>>> Andy LoPresto >>>>> alopre...@apache.org >>>>> alopresto.apa...@gmail.com >>>>> He/Him >>>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I suspect it would be fairly easy to make this change. We do, I >> think, >>>>>> have whitelist/blacklist in there somewhere but im not sure how >>> involved. >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:04 PM Tony Kurc <tk...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> All, >>>>>>> I've seen the discussion started on other projects [1][2], so I >> wanted >>>>> to >>>>>>> kick off a discussion to determine whether this is something nifi >>> could >>>>>>> look at too. Allen Wittenauer's post to yetus captures the why and >>> some >>>>> of >>>>>>> the how, so rather than copy and pasting, you can take a look at >> what >>>>> he's >>>>>>> done. Thoughts? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tony >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rd38afa9fb6c0dcd77d1a677f1152b7398b3bda93c9106b3393149d10%40%3Cdev.yetus.apache.org%3E >>>>>>> 2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0825eec0c84296bdab7cf898a987f06355443241ca02b2aaa51d3ef9%40%3Cdev.accumulo.apache.org%3E >>>>> >>>
