[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.

[Socob]

Change by Socob <206a8...@opayq.com>:


--
nosy: +Socob

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.

[Gabriel Marko]

Gabriel Marko  added the comment:

@terry.reed:

I politely ask you: Please use my proper first name if you refer to me and 
please don't call me an extremist (like here 
https://bugs.python.org/msg325802). Feel free to criticize my opinion but don't 
put labels on me. We don't know each other. Labeling people (not actions or 
ideas) is ad hominem argumentation or can be considered to be a personal attack 
which as far as I understand isn't complaint with CoC either.

And please don't misrepresent what I wrote:

> Marko called our actions 'madness' and here called us 'irresponsible'.   
> (https://bugs.python.org/issue34694#msg325802)

I called _the behavior_ irresponsible not the people. Even responsible people 
can sometimes have irresponsible choices or behavior.

> I find this behavior from the Python core developers and representatives 
> simply rresponsible. (https://bugs.python.org/msg325499)

I hope we can end this debate here.

--
nosy: +suic

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.

[Gabriel Marko]

Change by Gabriel Marko :


--
nosy:  -suic

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.

[R. David Murray]

Change by R. David Murray :


--
nosy:  -r.david.murray

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.

[R. David Murray]

R. David Murray  added the comment:

> David and Brett: I consider part of the actions of the anonymous person using 
> the temporary aliases 25.45 and jonsees to be violations of our Code of 
> Conduct.  I would therefore like you two to issue a warning, if not a ban.

I am not interested in being a community policeman, nor do I have time to do 
it.  I will no longer be making any non-technical contributions to Python.  I 
will no longer hand out tracker permissions or revoke them, and I will not 
participate in any of these non-technical discussions.

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.

[Gabriel Marko]

Gabriel Marko  added the comment:

@terry.reedy

> Gabriel, I believe I addressed most your concerns in my previous post.

I don't think so (see below) but we don't have to agree in everything. :)

> Are you are suggesting that we judge proposals _by the proposer_, rather than 
> the substance of the proposal?

Definitely not. It really doesn't matter who has made a proposal if _it makes 
sense_. However, that doesn't matter either when a proposal doesn't make sense 
or it's ill-advised or not justified.

> who made the proposal and _why_

I don't care about who but the _why_ is the matter here as I put it in point 1. 
of my previous post. IMO one has to be clear and explicit about his/her 
intentions/justifications i.e. if one does something for clarity than he or she 
should declare it :)

> There seems to be a misperception that we have collectively changed how we 
> judge doc proposals.  Should we 'announce' that we proceed as we have been?

When I use your word: PSF and core developers should address the misperception. 
To be honest with you, IMO the "Python officials" handled these issues very 
badly and unprofessionally. Let me clarify. I'm not the only one who has 
perceived this BPO and V. Stinner's master/slave change (or some "gender 
neutralizations" of the documentation in the past) as PC/SJW ergo 
politically/ideologically motivated. So, what is perceived to be the main issue 
is the motivation. The way these were handled brings quite an _ambiguous_ 
impression and it's not clear if PSF or core developers are willing to proceed 
in this PC/SJW (ergo political/ideological) direction or what exactly is their 
stance. I read the BPOs and GH PRs and also some other articles and discussions 
where this ambiguity created a lot of confusion. There were statements in those 
articles and discussions like "GvR were asked to decide this question and he 
agrees with PC/SJW direction..." Therefore, I don't know how to interpret "that 
w
 e proceed as we have been" as IMO no clear statement has been made so far.

tl;dr

To conclude: I think we still aren't at the same page. However, I'm not sure if 
it makes sense to continue in this debate _at the moment_ at least for me. The 
amount of absurdity, nonsense*  and misconduct, _I've perceived_ while 
discussing these two BPOs, made me disappointed and discouraged me for any 
further participation on trying to make Python better at least for now. I want 
to give it some time and come back to this with a "cool(er) head".

To be specific: merging unjustified politically or ideologically motivated 
changes without discussion, not addressing factual arguments, silencing and 
censoring discussions**, sending people to Twitter (even if they don't have an 
account), using Code of Conduct as a tool***, making "feeling-based" arguments 
aren't characteristics of rational discourse or open community. I can't imagine 
what comes next but after all these things, I'm (rather) pessimistic.

* e.g. "cleaning/censoring" language based on its "potential offensiveness" is 
a nonsense as any language _is_ potentially offensive.
** "no further discussion is needed" (or even welcomed) without further context 
or clarification _can be perceived_ as arrogant as saying "Shut up! I know it 
better!"
*** To be clear, I don't mean your warning under issue34694. I can completely 
agree that I shouldn't/mustn't make sarcastic comments. IMO CoC is a 
written-down common sense. If it needs to be used as an argument (i.e. a tool) 
in a discussion, it's a sign of deeper issues or that something went to far.

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.

[Carol Willing]

Carol Willing  added the comment:

Hi all,

I'm going to close this issue for now. As I mentioned earlier (sorry Terry for 
not being clearer), I will be doing a comprehensive review of the docs and 
source code over the next few months. I will make recommendations as PRs and 
issues as I go through the review (see #msg325291).

In the review, I will take into account PSF values, clarity in source code as 
well as testing of code changes, and best practices in documentation.

Thanks everyone for respecting my intent to treat this review in a respectful 
and thoughtful manner.

--
resolution:  -> postponed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.

[Terry J. Reedy]

Terry J. Reedy  added the comment:

Gabriel, I believe I addressed most your concerns in my previous post.  You 
might reread it in that light.  

There seems to be a misperception that we have collectively changed how we 
judge doc proposals.  Should we 'announce' that we proceed as we have been?

Are you are suggesting that we judge proposals by the proposer, rather than the 
substance of the proposal? In general, I should hope we do not have to.

If you want to be concretely helpful, comment on one or more of the specific 
proposals in PR9335, forgetting who made the proposal and why.  Or, pretend 
that I suggested making those changes for better clarity.  (But skip the 
multiple 'crazy' to 'weird' changes, as I have decided against those.)

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.

[Gabriel Marko]

Gabriel Marko  added the comment:

@terry.reedy: By madness I meant:

1. blank replacement of words without relevant justification. Collecting 5 
links and labelling some words as pejorative or ist or do it for 
“diversity reasons” etc. is no justification. I have no problem with changing 
wording in documentation but it has to be justified.

2. that IMO this is _de facto_ PC/SJW language mutilation/censorship. I've made 
my main claim about that here: https://bugs.python.org/issue34605#msg324825 and 
IMO this is a continuation of the BPO34605 which is not any better or even 
worse than this one. I also expect more BPOs and PRs like this and IMHO _no 
more BPOs or PRs like this should be accepted or merged_.

If I can advise: There should be a clear statement about how PSF and core 
developers will handle BPOs and PRs like this or BPO34605 i.e. if you 
accept/reject them in the future eventually what is going to be the rule of 
thumb for acceptance. It can bring some clarity into this whole 
issue/discussion. What I’ve experienced so far is very disappointing. Repeating 
“there will be no more discussion about this” is not a solution and I consider 
this to be damaging for Python community’s reputation.

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.

[Terry J. Reedy]

Terry J. Reedy  added the comment:

David and Brett: I consider part of the actions of the anonymous person using 
the temporary aliases 25.45 and jonsees to be violations of our Code of 
Conduct.  I would therefore like you two to issue a warning, if not a ban.

I consider the first part of the initial message to be arrogant and rude.  I 
let that go, took "The goal of this issue is not to stir up arguments, but to 
figure out the alternatives and ways to replace those problematic terms." at 
face value, re-opened the issue, and reviewed the second PR.  In response, 
'jonsees' refused to fix the bug and make or discuss the other requested 
revisions, but instead insulted and lied*.  In other words, 'argument' rather 
than 'figuring out'.  This treatment of my volunteer efforts makes me less 
willing to contribute more.

* In the context of Victor's changes on another issue, Raymond merging his 
first PR, Carol's promise to review the docs for inconsiderate language, and me 
reviewing the second PR and approving parts thereof, "Python developers have no 
desire of actually accepting any of these changes" is an insulting lie.
---

Gabriel: From what you wrote here, it was not immediately clear what 'madness' 
you want stopped.  The presence of certain words in the docs?  Or the blanket 
removal of certain words from the docs?  I am guessing the latter.  If so, that 
is not what any core devs that I know of are openly advocating.

The fact that I have to guess illustrates what I wrote in the review: "the 
'sin' of these words is that they tend to be vague and say more about the 
writer's opinion than about the ostensible subject."  Do you think it madness 
to replace vague (and somewhat sloppy) words with more precise words that 
better communicate real meaning to users?  That is what Raymond did and what I 
intended to do.
---

I am leaving this issue open so that I can at least remove "Windows is lunatic" 
in a new PR.

--
nosy: +brett.cannon, r.david.murray

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.

[Gabriel Marko]

Gabriel Marko  added the comment:

Come on guys. Stop this madness. :(

--
nosy: +suic

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue34660] Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.

[Terry J. Reedy]

Terry J. Reedy  added the comment:

I am re-opening with the scope limited to source code that will not be part of 
a doc review.  The 2nd PR falls within this limit and I think it should be 
properly reviewed.

I am opposed to removing 'sanity check' as it has a well-enough defined meaning 
within programming that does not disparage the code author.  Indeed, sanity 
checks are often written and labelled as such by module authors.  PR9335 does 
not touch this phrase.

The other terms are more often applied to code by others, sometimes with a hint 
of disparagement of the author.

--
assignee: willingc -> 
nosy: +terry.reedy
resolution: remind -> 
stage: resolved -> patch review
status: closed -> open
title: Remove ableist terms and pejoratives from source code and docs -> 
Replace ableist terms and pejoratives in source code.

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com