[EOT] Re: Being excellent to one another
John, > * I am not playing a game - I think this is very serious. > * I have not breached the code of conduct (at your request I have just read > it again). > * I am trying my *utmost* to act with restraint and consideration in the face > of persistent provocation. > * I have said on several occasions that we should all agree to live with > our differences and let this thread stop. thank you for your clarification. We’d like to end discussions in this thread, so let me just make a final statement on behalf of the maintainers. Some of your comments in this thread were considered derogatory, and they actively made at least one participant uncomfortable. This outcome is undesirable and as a group we need to make sure it does not happen again. Re-reading the thread I see that some of your earlier off-topic statements in the thread can be interpreted as antagonising, even if you hold they were not *meant* to be hurtful or trolling. The same applies to some comments and examples that were made in later messages to illustrate your points. ng0 asked for multiple times that “singular they” be used when referring to them. Your response to the use of “singular they” was “I refuse to use it”. 1. In the future, please respect the gender of participants by using the pronouns they ask for (when they do). Alternatively, use their names instead of pronouns. 2. Avoid assumptions by using gender-neutral wording. This project considers this form of respect to be more important than what some might consider “good English grammar”. We also acknowledge that there have been harsh messages on both sides, including personal insults; this is also not in the spirit of mutual respect that the code of conduct suggests, the foundation for communications in this group. It doesn’t have to be this way. Like you wrote above, we can agree to live with our differences and respect them. Let’s stop this thread and continue in the spirit of the code of conduct. -- Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC https://elephly.net PS: If any of the participants feel that we have handled this case in an unsatisfactory manner, please write to the maintainers (Ludo and myself) off list. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Being excellent to one another
ng0 transcribed 1.3K bytes: > John Darrington transcribed 1.1K bytes: > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:17:08PM +, ng0 wrote: > > Word of advice: don't use 'transvestite'. It's a slur. > > > > Is it? I didn't know that. I thought it just came from the latin, > > (or greek or whatever): trans meaning "across" and "vestment" clothing. > > It certainly wasn't a slur when I first learnt the word, but > > meanings change... Thanks for pointing this out. > > > > > > Actually it was a thinko anyway. I meant to type "transgender". > > > > J' > > > > > > -- > > Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. > > PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 > > fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 > > See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. > > > > It is a slur when used in the sense like you did it, ie it's a slur > for transpeople (not being specific about wether transgender or > transsexual was meant). > > I think if literally transvestite[0] is meant, there are nicer words people > chose for selfidentification, but I'd have to ask friends or search for > a good introduction which is selfexplanatory. > > Anyway, we are currently looking into the best way to solve this thread > and the issues it showed with Ludovic and Ricardo. > > [0]: The repetition only because I'm really not sure wether it's a > general or only specific slur. If it is in general, I'm sorry. > Addition, this is a good summary and shows the development of words. Summarized, today it's archaic and perceived as slur by many people. https://www.quora.com/Is-the-term-transvestite-offensive
Re: Being excellent to one another
John Darrington transcribed 1.1K bytes: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:17:08PM +, ng0 wrote: > Word of advice: don't use 'transvestite'. It's a slur. > > Is it? I didn't know that. I thought it just came from the latin, > (or greek or whatever): trans meaning "across" and "vestment" clothing. > It certainly wasn't a slur when I first learnt the word, but > meanings change... Thanks for pointing this out. > > > Actually it was a thinko anyway. I meant to type "transgender". > > J' > > > -- > Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. > PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 > fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 > See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. > It is a slur when used in the sense like you did it, ie it's a slur for transpeople (not being specific about wether transgender or transsexual was meant). I think if literally transvestite[0] is meant, there are nicer words people chose for selfidentification, but I'd have to ask friends or search for a good introduction which is selfexplanatory. Anyway, we are currently looking into the best way to solve this thread and the issues it showed with Ludovic and Ricardo. [0]: The repetition only because I'm really not sure wether it's a general or only specific slur. If it is in general, I'm sorry.
Re: Being excellent to one another
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:17:08PM +, ng0 wrote: Word of advice: don't use 'transvestite'. It's a slur. Is it? I didn't know that. I thought it just came from the latin, (or greek or whatever): trans meaning "across" and "vestment" clothing. It certainly wasn't a slur when I first learnt the word, but meanings change... Thanks for pointing this out. Actually it was a thinko anyway. I meant to type "transgender". J' -- Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Being excellent to one another
Word of advice: don't use 'transvestite'. It's a slur. To find out why doesn't take very long to search, but for completion: https://www.queerty.com/lets-learn-the-nine-anti-trans-slurs-we-should-avoid-20110620
Re: Being excellent to one another
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:14:45AM +0100, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: I'm trying to draw this thread to a close as I genuinely believe that neither side intends malice: - John genuinely does not see how his statements can very easily be interpreted as highly disrespectful and even mocking - myself and others genuinely do not want to bear down on individuals by virtue of simple miscommunication. John, I would suggest to you that when at least three independent individuals read your paragraph in which you (as you confirmed to me) in good faith tried to create an extreme example to confirm that you would respect (though fallibly) other people's rights to define their own identity, then that paragraph was perhaps unfortunately formulated. An apology and clarification would resolve that matter. By way of clarification from my side, the paragraph reads like you're creating a ("humourous") hyperbolic example that is only tangentially related to the real discussion at hand to begrudgingly admit that you would be willing to respect other people's identities. Perhaps in that light you can see how that statement might have trivialised other people's experiences and have come across as insulting? It simply wasn't necessary to employ that rhetorical device ??? just acknowledging that you might slip up at times, would have been sufficient. The rhetorical device turned your genuine sentiment into a statement in which you seemed to accede and simultaniously implicitly ridiculed those whom you were acceding to. Alright. I see you have a point, albeit stretched. By way of explanation: You are right that I deliberately contrived an extreme and rediculous hypothetical scenario to illustrate a point; or as you put it - a hyberbole. I DID think about this when I wrote it and I made it absurdly rediculous precisely *because* I thought doing so would avoid anyone thinking that I was trying to mock transvestites: Had I said "... a person that looks clearly like a bloke ..." then that would have been potentially hurtful to someone reading my mail and trying unsuccessfully to look effeminate. But by making the scenario extreme and rediculous I considered that this danger would be eliminated - a person trying to look effeminate, would obviously not have "a big black wiry beard" - she would be taking hormones - or at the very least - have shaved. However I realise now that the 6'4" attribute was not so carefully thought out. That person would have no control over her height. For this reason it is conceivable that a reader might have thought I was mocking that hypothetical person. I should have chosen an attribute which the person could change. I apologise for not thinking carefully enough about that email before sending it. Regarding your other comments, for the avoidance of doubt: * I have no interest in the sex/race/body-size etc of any Guix contributor. * I do not begrudge anyone their right to self-identify with whatever genre pleases the individual concerned. * I know how it hurts when others deny me the right to voice an opinion so I will not deny them that same right. Thank you all for listening. J' -- Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Being excellent to one another
May I suggest that those who think “singular they” should not be used just avoid non-gender neutral pronouns and use proper nouns, i.e. names, instead? I believe there is no other alternative. Regards, Florian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Being excellent to one another
Hello, I'm trying to draw this thread to a close as I genuinely believe that neither side intends malice: - John genuinely does not see how his statements can very easily be interpreted as highly disrespectful and even mocking - myself and others genuinely do not want to bear down on individuals by virtue of simple miscommunication. John, I would suggest to you that when at least three independent individuals read your paragraph in which you (as you confirmed to me) in good faith tried to create an extreme example to confirm that you would respect (though fallibly) other people's rights to define their own identity, then that paragraph was perhaps unfortunately formulated. An apology and clarification would resolve that matter. By way of clarification from my side, the paragraph reads like you're creating a ("humourous") hyperbolic example that is only tangentially related to the real discussion at hand to begrudgingly admit that you would be willing to respect other people's identities. Perhaps in that light you can see how that statement might have trivialised other people's experiences and have come across as insulting? It simply wasn't necessary to employ that rhetorical device — just acknowledging that you might slip up at times, would have been sufficient. The rhetorical device turned your genuine sentiment into a statement in which you seemed to accede and simultaniously implicitly ridiculed those whom you were acceding to. I also believe it is within this context that Ludo considered that you were in breach of the code of conduct. Specifically the example related to "Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments". As I say, I do not believe you intended to troll. I hope we can move on from this thread now by way of agreeing concrete steps for the future. I would request the following moving forward: - That we respect people's self-identification (which includes respecting their pronouns) - That we accept the "Singular They" as a valid form of non-gendered language in formal and informal communication (this does not mean *you* have to use it if you don't want to, but at least don't derail other people's advice that it is a valid form) Could we leave it at this for now? It would be cool if we could get explicit or at least silent agreement (by no longer responding to the thread) on this thread from those primarily involved. Best wishes, Alex PS: As Ricardo points out in his email to this thread, the issues of gender/sex, and more widely, identity are enormously complex & I agree that we cannot resolve them here. But we can come to a situation where we treat each other in a way that is non-exclusionary. Part of this means that we will have conversations like these at irregular intervals — precisely because these issues are not resolved in society at large, they will bubble up here. In the meantime I would encourage people who care about these subjects to read up on feminist theory, trans politics & intersectional politics. These are big, complex topics — and no-one agrees with all that is written, but I believe that we as a community would support most of the issues raised in those contexts. John Darrington writes: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 04:49:13PM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote: > > John, people have explained things at length already; you can re-read > the project???s code of conduct if in doubt. This isn???t up for debate. > Please stop playing this game right now. > > Ludo, > > * I am not playing a game - I think this is very serious. > * I have not breached the code of conduct (at your request I have just read > it again). > * I am trying my *utmost* to act with restraint and consideration in the face > of persistent provocation. > * I have said on several occasions that we should all agree to live with > our differences and let this thread stop. > > John
Re: Being excellent to one another
dian_ce...@zoho.com writes: > For anyone who reads older books, mankind as a whole used to be refered > to as "he", and while one can certainly make an issue out of that (and > I'm sure plenty of people have), it does also set a precedent for using > the male gender as a gender-neutral option, which happens to have a > rather long history. The generic masculine is a problem. Since the 1970s there have been numerous studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals that demonstrate that the use of so-called generic masculine (in languages with a genus) evokes a disproportionate number of male images compared to gendered split forms or gender neutral terms. As a result the use of generic “he” contributes to the alienation of underrepresented groups, especially in fields like software development. I suggest reading some relevant research articles or a literature review on this subject. > I don't know about anyone > else, but gender == sex, and that is more-or-less that. This is not correct. Gender has little to do with biological sex. That too has been the subject of research for many decades, and I encourage everyone to browse the scientific literature on this matter. Maybe this simplistic view explains your misunderstandings in the rest of your message. >> 1. Try not to offend. >> 2. Try not to be offended. >> 3. Recognise that diversity is an asset. >> 4. Respect the integrity and right to self-definition of all >> participants > > IMO, the 4th guideline there is entirely redundant and already covered > by the 3rd. People, we already *have* a code of conduct. There’s no need to try to come up with one from scratch. Please accept this. > I don't know if it is a cultural thing, or how I was raised, or what, > but as far as I am concerned part of basic social etiquette is roughly > summed up by the first two guidelines in the above list. Call me old > fasioned or a bigot or whatever, but calling a male "he" and a female > "she" is and should be perfectly acceptable, especially in this day and > age. This is nothing to do with fashion. What “should” be acceptable is not up to you to decide. There is no comparison between the distress caused by being “othered”, invalidated, and erased and the minor inconvenience of correcting one’s use of pronouns when talking to or about another person. > This whole issue feels like a general lack of reasonable manners[2] and > interpersonal skills, and not something that really calls for long, > drawn-out thread on the development mailing list. It *is* very simple and our Code of conduct (which is much much shorter than, say, the GPL) reflects that. We ask everyone to respect other people; this includes not to purposefully misgender others, not to poke fun at (= harrass) people who do not confirm to the gender binary, not to make sexist jokes or using sexualised language, etc. > [1] If someone wants to try and explain the issue to me, feel free to > send me a private email, but unless you're actually dealing with this > issue yourself, don't bother. I have no real tolerance for white knights > playing at protecting other people with issues, especially when it comes > to explaining said issues. I have no reason to believe a white knight > has any grasp on the situation that would prove to be useful to me. I very much disagree with this. 1) You cannot expect affected minorities to educate you; there is enough information out there that you can use to do this yourself. 2) As maintainers and developers who make up a community it is our duty to tackle these issues head on to shape the community in a way that ensures a welcoming environment for everyone. As a final note I’d like to state that you can read about these things. Please acknowledge the many researchers in social sciences, who have worked on these issues since decades. It is ill-advised to try to explain away problems that you don’t understand and where you have no theoretical background. The hacker ideal of building models from first principles fails here and is certainly not suited for a sprawling discussion. I recommend more reading on these subjects. -- Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC https://elephly.net
Re: Being excellent to one another
First of all, I have no clue why my email was explicitly listed in the CC:; I'll assume that was in error. Second, it is not my intention to insult or offend anyone here, but some people seem to be rather thin-skinned about (possibly pretend) slights. However, I feel I should toss my hat into the ring here for my own reasons. I should also make it known I have no clue who anyone in these emails are apart from ng0 and Ludo', the rest of you could be a very advanced Eliza for all I'm concerned, so it's pretty much impossible for me to support anyone here. Also feel free to ignore it if you so wish, though I'd appreciate everyone at least read the first footnote for what will be obvious reasons. On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:17:28 +0100 Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: > John Darrington writes: > > Regarding your other comments, as we have discussed before, we > > will have to agree to disagree about singular they. I have not > > the benefit of ever having learned English as a foreign language. > > But I do remember in my elementary school being taught NOT to use > > it *especially* not in written text. And - perhaps because of this > > early tuition - it still sounds clumsy and confusing to me. > > Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on singular they, I just want to mention that most, if not all, my English teachers thought the use of "they" and related was entirely incorrect, so John isn't alone here. English, simply put, lacks any "correct" gender-neutral pronouns, despite what common usage suggest. However, as I'd hope John is aware, common usage these days was considered the height of vulgarity a century before, at the very least. For anyone who reads older books, mankind as a whole used to be refered to as "he", and while one can certainly make an issue out of that (and I'm sure plenty of people have), it does also set a precedent for using the male gender as a gender-neutral option, which happens to have a rather long history. > but I hope we > can still agree on the following statements from my earlier email: > > - > [...] it's super easy: > - if you're not sure (or have forgotten), use "singular they", or ask > - if you know someone has a preference for pronouns, use those > - don't use pronouns when *you know* the other person does not > identify with them. I'm just going to point out that this whole 'gendering' issue is, at least as far as I am concerned, a rather recent developement, and one that I can't understand in the least [1]. I don't know about anyone else, but gender == sex, and that is more-or-less that. Certainly some people don't follow the traditional sex/gender roles (tomboys and metrosexuals (I think that was the proper term for an effiminent male used during the 90's, anyways) being the best examples I can come up with), but this feels very much like hairsplitting to me, and especially in the case of older generations use of English can very easily work against decades of normal, /correct/, and proper usage. > If you make a mistake, no-one will tear your head off I haven't kept up with this thread for very long, but I will say the tone, to me, an uninvolved (up until now) individual, sounds like a bit witch hunt. > In manuals we can just use "singular they", because it is a well > established convention and does not cause confusion. Another alternative that I just remembered running across was swapping pronoun gender between chapters/sections. This is done with some of the RPG books I have, so I thought I'd toss that option into the ring. > 1. Try not to offend. > 2. Try not to be offended. > 3. Recognise that diversity is an asset. > 4. Respect the integrity and right to self-definition of all > participants IMO, the 4th guideline there is entirely redundant and already covered by the 3rd. I don't know if it is a cultural thing, or how I was raised, or what, but as far as I am concerned part of basic social etiquette is roughly summed up by the first two guidelines in the above list. Call me old fasioned or a bigot or whatever, but calling a male "he" and a female "she" is and should be perfectly acceptable, especially in this day and age. If one takes offense to being called a "he" when they prefer "she", then as far as I am concerned they are either looking for a reason to be insulted (which is rather poor manners IMO) or rather thin-skinned and thus easily injured (which is a handicap in general social situations and also seems to assume that anyone 'misgendering' them is making an effort at being insulting, when there is probably no practical way for someone to identify their prefered pronoun unless they happen to be a rather capable cross-dresser). For people who are easily injured, I do feel sorry, and hopefully a capable psychologist could help with that (I'd make other suggestions, but I don't feel this is the place for such). As far as I am concerned, being insulted or injured because someone misgenders you is like giving pork to a Jew or M
Re: Being excellent to one another
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 04:49:13PM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote: John, people have explained things at length already; you can re-read the project???s code of conduct if in doubt. This isn???t up for debate. Please stop playing this game right now. Ludo, * I am not playing a game - I think this is very serious. * I have not breached the code of conduct (at your request I have just read it again). * I am trying my *utmost* to act with restraint and consideration in the face of persistent provocation. * I have said on several occasions that we should all agree to live with our differences and let this thread stop. John -- Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Being excellent to one another
John Darrington skribis: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:09:33AM -0500, Christopher Allan Webber wrote: > John Darrington writes: > > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 07:57:07PM -0700, dian_ce...@zoho.com wrote: > > ... and yes. If an individual specifically requests to be referred to > by > > a partcular set of pronouns I will attempt to do so, but may > occasionally > > forget if that person wants feminine pronouns and is 6'4" and has an > enormous > > black wiry beard. > > This was a needlessly hurtful comment, and if you can't see that, I > worry about it. John, I respect your technical contributions to the > Guix project, but this isn't okay. > > I'm sorry - but WHY is it hurtful? Whom does it hurt? How is that person > hurt? > > Please explain. John, people have explained things at length already; you can re-read the project’s code of conduct if in doubt. This isn’t up for debate. Please stop playing this game right now. Ludo’.
Re: Being excellent to one another
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:09:33AM -0500, Christopher Allan Webber wrote: John Darrington writes: > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 07:57:07PM -0700, dian_ce...@zoho.com wrote: > ... and yes. If an individual specifically requests to be referred to by > a partcular set of pronouns I will attempt to do so, but may occasionally > forget if that person wants feminine pronouns and is 6'4" and has an enormous > black wiry beard. This was a needlessly hurtful comment, and if you can't see that, I worry about it. John, I respect your technical contributions to the Guix project, but this isn't okay. I'm sorry - but WHY is it hurtful? Whom does it hurt? How is that person hurt? Please explain. -- Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Being excellent to one another
John Darrington writes: > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 07:57:07PM -0700, dian_ce...@zoho.com wrote: > ... and yes. If an individual specifically requests to be referred to by > a partcular set of pronouns I will attempt to do so, but may occasionally > forget if that person wants feminine pronouns and is 6'4" and has an enormous > black wiry beard. This was a needlessly hurtful comment, and if you can't see that, I worry about it. John, I respect your technical contributions to the Guix project, but this isn't okay. I don't want to keep responding to this thread. But the fact is, ng0 *did* (very politely) express a request to be refered by a specific set of pronouns... and not even in reply to you! But you started a sub-thread dismissing those from the forefront, which is not at all respecting that request. Will you respect it or not? I hope the answer is yes, in which case, please don't raise this again. As to whether "they / them" is acceptable English, quite frankly English is the most constantly and heavily mutated language of maybe all time, and it proves adaptable of meeting the needs of whatever. "Proper grammar" from 200 years ago would not be considered such today, and vice versa. In fact, as I linked previously, "singular they" as a pronoun choice already has precedence in current english and is used by nearly everyone when you don't know the grammar of the person (eg, "I've been told we'll have a special guest tonight, but I don't know their name."). Extending that to the preferred pronoun of an individual then is not unreasonable. Regardless, English adapts to meet the needs of its time, and this is a need being expressed today, since another commonly nonbinary pronoun does not exist. Please don't push back against it. People are requesting your respect; please just give it to them.
Re: Being excellent to one another
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 03:27:48PM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote: Howdy! John Darrington skribis: > As I recall, their request was that I always use "singular they" and never to > mention other possible alternatives to anyone. I acknowledge their request and > recognise their every right to make it. But I feel no obligation to comply with > their request. Ng0's reaction to my declining, I interpreted to mean that they > considered it not to be a request, but a demand. If this interpretation was > wrong, then I apologise to them. John, I think you???re playing on words here. I'm glad you noticed! If you (or anyone else wishes) I will retype the above text using the pronoun of your choice, because I mean what I say. In this case, what matters is respecting the other participant who explicitly asked to be referred to using non-gendered pronouns. It???s a very simple request; honoring it costs us nothing but it can make a big difference to this person. I fully agree. And I have already said that I have no problem with that, and will do so without argument. I don???t want anyone of us to make someone else???s life harder by disregarding what they present as important to them. Nobody should ever set out to make the life of another person harder. Also, nobody should ever start believing that what is important to them must take priority over what is important to another. J' -- Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Being excellent to one another
Howdy! John Darrington skribis: > As I recall, their request was that I always use "singular they" and never to > mention other possible alternatives to anyone. I acknowledge their request > and > recognise their every right to make it. But I feel no obligation to comply > with > their request. Ng0's reaction to my declining, I interpreted to mean that > they > considered it not to be a request, but a demand. If this interpretation was > wrong, then I apologise to them. John, I think you’re playing on words here. It’s as simple as Alex wrote it: > - if you're not sure (or have forgotten), use "singular they", or ask > - if you know someone has a preference for pronouns, use those > - don't use pronouns when *you know* the other person does not identify > with them. In this case, what matters is respecting the other participant who explicitly asked to be referred to using non-gendered pronouns. It’s a very simple request; honoring it costs us nothing but it can make a big difference to this person. I don’t want anyone of us to make someone else’s life harder by disregarding what they present as important to them. Thanks, Ludo’. PS: It’s a non-technical discussion but one that’s important to have to make sure our group works correctly.
Re: Being excellent to one another
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:53:38PM +0100, Pjotr Prins wrote: Erm. Despite the obvious intelligence of all Guix participants I think we ought to stick to technical issues on this mailing list (i.e., guix-technical). Maybe we can fork these recent discussions to guix-ethical or guix-culture? We all have good intentions, that is the general assumption! But I think these discussions will hurt the project as a whole. I fully agree and have made the same sugggestion a few days ago. J' -- Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Being excellent to one another
Pjotr Prins transcribed 0.4K bytes: > Erm. Despite the obvious intelligence of all Guix participants I think > we ought to stick to technical issues on this mailing list (i.e., > guix-technical). > > Maybe we can fork these recent discussions to guix-ethical or > guix-culture? We all have good intentions, that is the general > assumption! But I think these discussions will hurt the project as a > whole. Take it elsewhere, ladies and gentleman. > > Pj. > Discussions about how the project is perceived and acts through the actions of one of its members with implicit ignorance and refusal to simply acknowledge problems, acknowledge differences, language barriers, and the hint to read and learn (wow, new knowledge, you could actually grow on this), are not hurting the community. It is what we need. I did not want to follow this discussion, but it seems as it is necessary. I agree to an earlier point which was made, and extend it: I don't want to be part of a project which looks and behaves like almost every other project out there, an exclusive boysclub. I understand that the majority at least in the scope of this project is acting and behaving welcoming,friendly and understanding. When there are problems, the way to cope with them is not to move them elsewhere. This is not only about pronouns. I wished it was that easy, but it isn't. The default of John, if you go through irc logs, is to correct repeatedly people who make mistakes in english. I'm asking to acknowledge the existence of people who do not define their gender as binary, to not regard them as exceptional or unusal, and to respect! people who are not speaking or writing english daily. If you can't understand them, ask politely. To correct them without them asking for corrections is a top-down view you can only allow yourself to have if you have more privileges than the other person. Now what I'm personally requesting, it shouldn't be necessary that I have to do this: don't try to attack me. don't chery pick arguments. I don't expect everyone to be friendly, I've lived long enough to know that this won't work out. We are working on this in our freetime. (as an example, not directly related to this thread) I would not hang out in my free time with facists, sexists, or otherwise unfriendly people.
Re: Being excellent to one another
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:21:59PM +0100, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: My intention was to call-back to my impression of other parts of this conversation where it seemed you were point-blank refusing to acknowledge ng0's request. As I recall, their request was that I always use "singular they" and never to mention other possible alternatives to anyone. I acknowledge their request and recognise their every right to make it. But I feel no obligation to comply with their request. Ng0's reaction to my declining, I interpreted to mean that they considered it not to be a request, but a demand. If this interpretation was wrong, then I apologise to them. Say whaat? Way to blow our discussion out of proportion. Are you seriously suggesting the consensus established through conversation and convention in a small community is in any way comparable to the pile of dung that is the contemporary ridiculously complex and terrifyingly non-egalitarian state of global authoritarian politics? I believe the current state of global politics has come about through populism. In part, that means some people have been coerced into supporting what they would not otherwise have supported - because of peer pressure. I do support what I believe to be wrong - ethically, technically or gramatically - simply because a majority of other people say I should. -- Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Being excellent to one another
Erm. Despite the obvious intelligence of all Guix participants I think we ought to stick to technical issues on this mailing list (i.e., guix-technical). Maybe we can fork these recent discussions to guix-ethical or guix-culture? We all have good intentions, that is the general assumption! But I think these discussions will hurt the project as a whole. Take it elsewhere, ladies and gentleman. Pj.
Re: Being excellent to one another
John Darrington writes: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:17:28AM +0100, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: > > Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on singular they, but I hope we can > still agree on the following statements from my earlier email: > > I agree to a slightly edited version: > > - > [...] sometimes there is not a simple solution, however : > - if you know someone has a preference for particular pronouns, use > those when >refering to that person. > - don't use pronouns when *you know* the other person does not identify >with them. > - if unsure, ask the person how he or she would like to be referenced. > > If you make a mistake, an apology will show your intention was not > malicious. > > In manuals we can just use "singular they", or another non-gender > specific > form of reference. > - In the end, when you communicate informally, there is no arbiter of what you write, so, to be clear, the first part above is not some form of official guideline — just thinking out loud of what it means to engage respectfully in a public, anonymous space. I believe you approach in a similar vein, which I appreciate. The problem with your above suggestion is that it leaves out the default case: How will you write emails to the list? Will you assume a default "he"? Or a default "she"? And what about non-binary identifying people? We don't know who's sitting at the other end. Also, in the context of a default "he" usage (which you may not do, you mentioned in the past that you sometimes default to "she"), I'm concerned that emails are archived: they become a written representation of what our community is like — and I do not want our community to reinforce in a written form, that "only boys hang out around Guix / are geeks". > Alternatively it would be incumbent on you to provide an > alternative that is not just "I will bloody-mindedly stick to > gendering people when I don't know anything about them". > > It is this tendency to call any difference of opinion by terms such as > "bloody-minded" which offends me - I try not to take offence - but I find > hard not to. I'm sorry. My intention was to call-back to my impression of other parts of this conversation where it seemed you were point-blank refusing to acknowledge ng0's request. But I can accept that you may find that an unfair characterisation, and I phrased my sentiment too sharply in this case. My apologies for this. > To answer your question: How about saying "he or she" or "the person". As mentioned above, the first renders non-binary identifying people invisible. For the second, if you can write a section of a manual using "the person" in such a way that it won't sound clumsy, then by all means. Personally I would still suggest that "they/them/their" is wonderfully short, to the point and unambiguous. Also, it's a wheel that was already invented: it has widespread usage outside of our community. > In the formal context, well??? I think there is broad consensus that > "singular they" is awesome. > > There is a broad concensus that Donald Trump, Rodrigo Duterte and > Recep Erdogan are awesome.However I do not agree. Say whaat? Way to blow our discussion out of proportion. Are you seriously suggesting the consensus established through conversation and convention in a small community is in any way comparable to the pile of dung that is the contemporary ridiculously complex and terrifyingly non-egalitarian state of global authoritarian politics? > > People having been talking about being "welcoming". Well, I beleive > the way > > to achieve that is threefold: > > > > 1. Try not to offend. > > 2. Try not to be offended. > > 3. Recognise that diversity is an asset. > > Absolutely, wonderful sentiment. To that I would add: > > 4. Respect the integrity and right to self-definition of all participants > > I agree. Put that one in too. Nice :-) >From my perspective, I'm probably done with this conversation for now, though will respond if specific queries are addressed at me. Alex
Re: Being excellent to one another
2017-03-20 11:44 GMT+01:00 John Darrington : > > There is a broad concensus that Donald Trump, Rodrigo Duterte and > Recep Erdogan are awesome.However I do not agree. > It seems to me that, on some issues you perfectly agree with those three.
Re: Being excellent to one another
2017-03-20 7:36 GMT+01:00 John Darrington : > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 07:57:07PM -0700, dian_ce...@zoho.com wrote: > On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:40:27 -0500 > Christopher Allan Webber wrote: > > The important thing is to not assume someone's preferred pronouns > > without knowing them. Singular they isn't your only option; I also > > happen to like Spivak pronouns: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun > > The problem here is that I'd be suprised if many people have even > heard > about these. I used to play MUDs quite a bit and have /never/ heard > any > of those. They are certainly not a part of common usage, and I'd say > should be avoided for something more standard (them et al). It's a > nice > idea, but overall seems like it would cause confusion, and probably > more than a few "Hey, there is a typo in the manual"-type bugs than > anything. > > At least, if I picked up a random bit of documentation and saw things > like "e" used constantly, I'd assume it was a typo and not some > archaic > gender-neutral pronoun. > > I tend to agree. These invented aspects of language are kindof fun for > informal use but out of place in a user manual.In a manual we should > stick to proper English - put yourself in the position of a person who > is learning English as a second language. That person has spent months > attending language school and is starting to become confident then picks > up a manual and sees the words "pis" and "per". It's enough to throw you > off your stride. (I remember something similar happening to me when > learning > a foriegn language: I started reading a novel, and there was lots of > dialogue > all in regional dialect. I felt like giving up.) > > Fortunately in a user manual one very rarely needs a personal *definite* > pronoun. > In GNU manuals, the long standing practise is to refer to the person using > the > program, as "you". Occasionally a personal *indefinite* pronoun is called > for and > luckily in English we have a perfect gender neutral one, viz: "one". > > Some authors religiously avoid the whole issue altogether by writing every > sentence in the passive voice - but that makes the manual extremely hard to > understand even for very patient readers. > > Ok, it' s evident that John has his own weaknesses about linguistics. I feel compelled to write something anyway, so that a publicly available record of this remains. When writing texts, such as this email, and absolutely *have* to use a > personal > definite pronoun, I default to "she" because whereas vigilantes will > pounce upon > you whenever they see "he" (ironically those people are invariably male), > I've > never had anyone complain when "she" occurs where the gender of the subject > might well be masculine. > In life, I've had my share of hardship because of assumed social norms related to sexual orientation. And a scene has been described to you of people breaking in tears and leaving places because of having been misgendered. So your observation about who raises the issue, associated to the word "vigilantes" means that you are negating my reasons. You are implicitly claiming that this is not about suffered discrimination, but rather it' s about imposing discrimination, possibly on an idelogical basis, using the issue of sexual orientation/gendering as a tool. Like when you wrote that being addressed with a pronoun of the wrong number is not that terrible. You were negating the issue raised by ng0. You are being gratuitously offensive, aggressing people and you are being dismissive about people weaknesses that are being represented to you repeatedly. On the ground of formal linguistic correctness, as if it was a matter or death or life. And it seems that your argument about your native language is not that convincing, anyway. What does this make of you ?
Re: Being excellent to one another
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:17:28AM +0100, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on singular they, but I hope we can still agree on the following statements from my earlier email: I agree to a slightly edited version: - [...] sometimes there is not a simple solution, however : - if you know someone has a preference for particular pronouns, use those when refering to that person. - don't use pronouns when *you know* the other person does not identify with them. - if unsure, ask the person how he or she would like to be referenced. If you make a mistake, an apology will show your intention was not malicious. In manuals we can just use "singular they", or another non-gender specific form of reference. - Alternatively it would be incumbent on you to provide an alternative that is not just "I will bloody-mindedly stick to gendering people when I don't know anything about them". It is this tendency to call any difference of opinion by terms such as "bloody-minded" which offends me - I try not to take offence - but I find hard not to. I'm sorry. To answer your question: How about saying "he or she" or "the person". In the formal context, well??? I think there is broad consensus that "singular they" is awesome. There is a broad concensus that Donald Trump, Rodrigo Duterte and Recep Erdogan are awesome.However I do not agree. > People having been talking about being "welcoming". Well, I beleive the way > to achieve that is threefold: > > 1. Try not to offend. > 2. Try not to be offended. > 3. Recognise that diversity is an asset. Absolutely, wonderful sentiment. To that I would add: 4. Respect the integrity and right to self-definition of all participants I agree. Put that one in too. J' -- Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Being excellent to one another
John Darrington writes: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 09:57:04AM +0100, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: > > > > ... and yes. If an individual specifically requests to be referred to > by > > a partcular set of pronouns I will attempt to do so, but may > occasionally > > forget if that person wants feminine pronouns and is 6'4" and has an > enormous > > black wiry beard. > > [I really don't know what your intention is with that last paragraph ??? > I > will just ignore it, as I wouldn't want to ascribe malice???] > > OMG! What is wrong here? Why would you (or anyone) think this is malicious? > The > intention, which I thought was clear, is that if people make unusual requests > we should try to accommodate those requests, but the requestor should not be > suprised or offended if people don't always remember. Surely that was > obvious? Not obvious at all, thanks for the clarification. > [...] > > Regarding your other comments, as we have discussed before, we will have to > agree to disagree about singular they. I have not the benefit of ever > having learned English as a foreign language. But I do remember in my > elementary > school being taught NOT to use it *especially* not in written text. And - > perhaps because of this early tuition - it still sounds clumsy and confusing > to > me. Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on singular they, but I hope we can still agree on the following statements from my earlier email: - [...] it's super easy: - if you're not sure (or have forgotten), use "singular they", or ask - if you know someone has a preference for pronouns, use those - don't use pronouns when *you know* the other person does not identify with them. If you make a mistake, no-one will tear your head off — it may well feel like an awkward social faux pas to you, but, c'est la vie! And an apology will show your intention was not malicious. In manuals we can just use "singular they", because it is a well established convention and does not cause confusion. - I think if you agree with the sentiment, but dislike singular they as the "general fall-back" then the above approach provides an inherent method for you not to have to use that ("just ask") in the informal context. Alternatively it would be incumbent on you to provide an alternative that is not just "I will bloody-mindedly stick to gendering people when I don't know anything about them". In the formal context, well… I think there is broad consensus that "singular they" is awesome. > People having been talking about being "welcoming". Well, I beleive the way > to achieve that is threefold: > > 1. Try not to offend. > 2. Try not to be offended. > 3. Recognise that diversity is an asset. Absolutely, wonderful sentiment. To that I would add: 4. Respect the integrity and right to self-definition of all participants Ta, Alex
Re: Being excellent to one another
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 09:57:04AM +0100, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: > > ... and yes. If an individual specifically requests to be referred to by > a partcular set of pronouns I will attempt to do so, but may occasionally > forget if that person wants feminine pronouns and is 6'4" and has an enormous > black wiry beard. [I really don't know what your intention is with that last paragraph ??? I will just ignore it, as I wouldn't want to ascribe malice???] OMG! What is wrong here? Why would you (or anyone) think this is malicious? The intention, which I thought was clear, is that if people make unusual requests we should try to accommodate those requests, but the requestor should not be suprised or offended if people don't always remember. Surely that was obvious? It is the same with the Linux vs. GNU/Linux thing. When speaking for GNU, I request people to say GNU/Linux when talking about the operating system. However, I recognise that some people have been exposed to "Linux" for a long time, and it is hard to break the habit of a lifetime instantly. Therefore, I don't jump on someone saying "Gotcha" if they once forget. I will however give them a polite and gentle reminder. Regarding your other comments, as we have discussed before, we will have to agree to disagree about singular they. I have not the benefit of ever having learned English as a foreign language. But I do remember in my elementary school being taught NOT to use it *especially* not in written text. And - perhaps because of this early tuition - it still sounds clumsy and confusing to me. People having been talking about being "welcoming". Well, I beleive the way to achieve that is threefold: 1. Try not to offend. 2. Try not to be offended. 3. Recognise that diversity is an asset. J' -- Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Being excellent to one another
John Darrington writes: > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 07:57:07PM -0700, dian_ce...@zoho.com wrote: > On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:40:27 -0500 > Christopher Allan Webber wrote: > > The important thing is to not assume someone's preferred pronouns > > without knowing them. Singular they isn't your only option; I also > > happen to like Spivak pronouns: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun > > The problem here is that I'd be suprised if many people have even heard > about these. I used to play MUDs quite a bit and have /never/ heard any > of those. They are certainly not a part of common usage, and I'd say > should be avoided for something more standard (them et al). It's a nice > idea, but overall seems like it would cause confusion, and probably > more than a few "Hey, there is a typo in the manual"-type bugs than > anything. > > At least, if I picked up a random bit of documentation and saw things > like "e" used constantly, I'd assume it was a typo and not some archaic > gender-neutral pronoun. > > [...] > When writing texts, such as this email, and absolutely *have* to use a > personal > definite pronoun, I default to "she" because whereas vigilantes will pounce > upon > you whenever they see "he" (ironically those people are invariably male), I've > never had anyone complain when "she" occurs where the gender of the subject > might well be masculine. > > > ... and yes. If an individual specifically requests to be referred to by > a partcular set of pronouns I will attempt to do so, but may occasionally > forget if that person wants feminine pronouns and is 6'4" and has an enormous > black wiry beard. [I really don't know what your intention is with that last paragraph — I will just ignore it, as I wouldn't want to ascribe malice…] John, really, it's super easy: - if you're not sure (or have forgotten), use "singular they", or ask - if you know someone has a preference for pronouns, use those - don't use pronouns when *you know* the other person does not identify with them. If you make a mistake, no-one will tear your head off — it may well feel like an awkward social faux pas to you, but, c'est la vie! And an apology will show your intention was not malicious. In manuals we can just use "singular they", because it is a well established convention and does not cause confusion. Someone who's learning English as a second language would hopefully have been exposed to "singular they" in their class. If not, they should ask for their money back. Regardless, it would be great for our manual to introduce them to this lovely convention that is so widely used. Cheers, Alex
Re: Being excellent to one another
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 07:57:07PM -0700, dian_ce...@zoho.com wrote: On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:40:27 -0500 Christopher Allan Webber wrote: > The important thing is to not assume someone's preferred pronouns > without knowing them. Singular they isn't your only option; I also > happen to like Spivak pronouns: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun The problem here is that I'd be suprised if many people have even heard about these. I used to play MUDs quite a bit and have /never/ heard any of those. They are certainly not a part of common usage, and I'd say should be avoided for something more standard (them et al). It's a nice idea, but overall seems like it would cause confusion, and probably more than a few "Hey, there is a typo in the manual"-type bugs than anything. At least, if I picked up a random bit of documentation and saw things like "e" used constantly, I'd assume it was a typo and not some archaic gender-neutral pronoun. I tend to agree. These invented aspects of language are kindof fun for informal use but out of place in a user manual.In a manual we should stick to proper English - put yourself in the position of a person who is learning English as a second language. That person has spent months attending language school and is starting to become confident then picks up a manual and sees the words "pis" and "per". It's enough to throw you off your stride. (I remember something similar happening to me when learning a foriegn language: I started reading a novel, and there was lots of dialogue all in regional dialect. I felt like giving up.) Fortunately in a user manual one very rarely needs a personal *definite* pronoun. In GNU manuals, the long standing practise is to refer to the person using the program, as "you". Occasionally a personal *indefinite* pronoun is called for and luckily in English we have a perfect gender neutral one, viz: "one". Some authors religiously avoid the whole issue altogether by writing every sentence in the passive voice - but that makes the manual extremely hard to understand even for very patient readers. When writing texts, such as this email, and absolutely *have* to use a personal definite pronoun, I default to "she" because whereas vigilantes will pounce upon you whenever they see "he" (ironically those people are invariably male), I've never had anyone complain when "she" occurs where the gender of the subject might well be masculine. ... and yes. If an individual specifically requests to be referred to by a partcular set of pronouns I will attempt to do so, but may occasionally forget if that person wants feminine pronouns and is 6'4" and has an enormous black wiry beard. J' -- Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Being excellent to one another
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:40:27 -0500 Christopher Allan Webber wrote: > The important thing is to not assume someone's preferred pronouns > without knowing them. Singular they isn't your only option; I also > happen to like Spivak pronouns: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun The problem here is that I'd be suprised if many people have even heard about these. I used to play MUDs quite a bit and have /never/ heard any of those. They are certainly not a part of common usage, and I'd say should be avoided for something more standard (them et al). It's a nice idea, but overall seems like it would cause confusion, and probably more than a few "Hey, there is a typo in the manual"-type bugs than anything. At least, if I picked up a random bit of documentation and saw things like "e" used constantly, I'd assume it was a typo and not some archaic gender-neutral pronoun.
Re: Being excellent to one another
Ludovic Courtès writes: > Hi there, > > Gentlefolks, please everyone calm down. Being rude or insulting to > fellow hackers is not acceptable on the project’s communication > channels, period. When you feel unable to express your disagreement in > a constructive and respectful manner, please delay your reply until you > can do that. [...] > Besides, while I appreciate it when native English speakers provide > corrections and guidance, I think we as a project must tolerate English > mistakes in our communication. The reason for this is very simple: most > contributors are not native English speakers. English is our > communication medium; it shouldn’t be a hindrance to the inclusion of > contributors who do not master it. About English though, I do agree with ng0 about they/them... as a default pronoun, especially when you don't know. It's good English, with longstanding history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they The important thing is to not assume someone's preferred pronouns without knowing them. Singular they isn't your only option; I also happen to like Spivak pronouns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun ... which have the delightful connection to hacker culture in their popularity with Lambdamoo, an oldschool MUD. :) Singular they (or even spivak) is also acceptable as a pronoun if someone chooses that. Of course it's possible to make mistakes, but it *is* important to try not to misgender people... both by not making assumptions, and especially when using the right pronouns once you do know. I have both seen people break down into tears and also walk away from communities from being misgendered. That's an important sign of respect towards the person... and it doesn't cost you anything to do it. Be excellent to each other indeed... and here's one critical way to do it.
Re: Being excellent to one another
Hi, skribis: > On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 14:43:20 +0100 > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: >> Besides, while I appreciate it when native English speakers provide >> corrections and guidance, I think we as a project must tolerate >> English mistakes in our communication. The reason for this is very >> simple: most contributors are not native English speakers. English >> is our communication medium; it shouldn’t be a hindrance to the >> inclusion of contributors who do not master it. > > Are there any guidelines as to what parts of English one should avoid > using in documentation? If most (as you put it) contributors aren't > native English speakers, doesn't that mean we should attempt to use a > simpler vocabulary so users and contributors can read and understand > things easier? I was referring mostly to informal communications among contributors. For the manual, I think it makes sense to stick to “correct English”. Ideally, we’d have translations of the manual, but we’re not there yet. Ludo’.
Re: Being excellent to one another
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 08:47:17AM -0700, dian_ce...@zoho.com wrote: Are there any guidelines as to what parts of English one should avoid using in documentation? There are some such guidlines. See: https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Documentation If most (as you put it) contributors aren't native English speakers, doesn't that mean we should attempt to use a simpler vocabulary so users and contributors can read and understand things easier? I think that is a good general policy. J' -- Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Being excellent to one another
On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 14:43:20 +0100 l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: > Besides, while I appreciate it when native English speakers provide > corrections and guidance, I think we as a project must tolerate > English mistakes in our communication. The reason for this is very > simple: most contributors are not native English speakers. English > is our communication medium; it shouldn’t be a hindrance to the > inclusion of contributors who do not master it. Are there any guidelines as to what parts of English one should avoid using in documentation? If most (as you put it) contributors aren't native English speakers, doesn't that mean we should attempt to use a simpler vocabulary so users and contributors can read and understand things easier?
Being excellent to one another
Hi there, Gentlefolks, please everyone calm down. Being rude or insulting to fellow hackers is not acceptable on the project’s communication channels, period. When you feel unable to express your disagreement in a constructive and respectful manner, please delay your reply until you can do that. We added to the contribution guidelines in the manual a while back an item about using gender-neutral wording in our documentation. We’ll do that because I believe it’s one of the modest ways in which we can help fight gender bias in our domain, and because it’s a tiny effort and leads to “valid” understandable English (there’s lots of documentation about the origins of singular they, BTW.) Besides, while I appreciate it when native English speakers provide corrections and guidance, I think we as a project must tolerate English mistakes in our communication. The reason for this is very simple: most contributors are not native English speakers. English is our communication medium; it shouldn’t be a hindrance to the inclusion of contributors who do not master it. Happy hacking! Ludo’.