You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@diversity.apache.org by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net> on 2021/09/02 17:52:25 UTC
Re: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
I do not like this effort. Banning words and pointing them out is the wrong
way to achieve an inclusive environment.
Also I think words like he or she must not be banned. They are neutral
words that are totally acceptable in many cases.
Avoiding them in most documentation might be fine but having them on a bad
word list feels extremely wrong to me.
In our well meant effort to be woke we sometimes go too far.
Christian
Am So., 29. Aug. 2021 um 18:46 Uhr schrieb Daniel Gruno <
humbedooh@apache.org>:
> [This email was sent to all (P)PMCS at the ASF]
>
> Words matter. The words we choose influence the kinds of communities we
> build, the tone we set for our participants, and who will feel welcome
> in our projects.
>
> With the growing awareness in the software industry that we routinely
> use sexist, racist, ableist words in our code and documentation, it’s
> important that you have tooling that helps you discover if your project
> is part of the problem.
>
> The CLC - Conscious Language Checker - is such a tool, and gives you
> insight into what words and phrases appear in your code and docs that
> might make your project less welcoming to certain parts of your
> potential community. We’ve taken the liberty to add your project’s
> repositories to what we’re scanning, and encourage you to have a look at
> https://clc.diversity.apache.org/. Then come to the Diversity mailing
> list - https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@diversity.apache.org - if
> you want to discuss best practices in adjusting your language choices.
>
> It is important to note that the CLC instance we have running is using
> default settings for all projects. Thus, a project may disagree with
> what the scanner considers problematic. This is all configurable, and
> requires you to log in via ASF Oauth. Once logged in, you may edit your
> project's settings to your liking. New scans happen every 12 hours.
>
> We ask that people do not add or remove project repositories without
> prior notice to dev@diversity.apache.org.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel and Rich, on behalf of the Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
> committee at the ASF.
>
>
> Helpful resources:
>
> Dashboard: https://clc.diversity.apache.org/
> CLC code: https://github.com/Humbedooh/clc
> Inclusive Naming Initiative: https://inclusivenaming.org/
>
>
--
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Computer Scientist
http://www.adobe.com
Re: AW: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 9/9/21 4:03 PM, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I just took the question about the CLC to the PLC4X project. There we very quickly noticed that we would be stuck in a dilemma:
>
> We're implementing drivers for protocols that use pretty un-inclusive terms ... A Modbus Master is simply called that, same as A Modbus Slave. A PROFINET Master also simply is called that way. We could now decide to call it something different, but that would definitiely confuse people.
>
> What are your thoughts on this?
When this has been discussed at InclusiveNaming.org, the response has
been generally pragmatic - change what you can, don't sweat what you
can't, unless you have influence over the standards/protocol committee.
And we all know how slowly standards definitions change.
Some projects have adopted "local" naming, and have wrappers around
whatever upstream libraries/standards are implemented. That does indeed
tend to cause confusion at some level, whether it's the end users or the
implementers. I don't have a lot of anecdotal evidence about what has
worked or not in those cases.
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. September 2021 14:40
> An: dev@diversity.apache.org; Łukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org>; private@karaf.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
>
>
>
> On 9/5/21 6:03 PM, Łukasz Dywicki wrote:
>> My feeling is close to Christian's in this regard.
>>
>> Writing docs is usually harder than writing code, especially for for
>> non-native speakers. Similar thing applies to non-native readers of it.
>> Try writing up a piece of PKI description without using "Alice and Bob"
>> and correlated his/her phrases.
>>
>> While I understand that many society groups been going through various
>> troubles now and in the past, I do believe that changing of vocabulary
>> will simply not fix their issues. To be fair I don't know how to write
>> that to not step on somebody's else sensitive toe.
>
> You'll get no disagreement from me on that - anyone who thinks that changing vocabulary will fix everything is fooling themselves. Nope, this is one step out of many. But it's an important step, because it causes us to *think* about how words affect others. And that, in my experience, leads us to think about how *everything* affects others.
> Compassion and empathy start with small gestures. Small steps become larger steps. Thinking that the small step is the entire solution is a mistake. Worse yet, deciding not to take the small step because it's not the entire solution, causes the larger steps to never be considered.
>
>> On 02.09.2021 20:18, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>> When there is a list of "bad" words and a tool that highlights them
>>> then this is exactly how it feels.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> Am Do., 2. Sept. 2021 um 20:05 Uhr schrieb Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/2/21 1:52 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>>>> I do not like this effort. Banning words and pointing them out is
>>>>> the
>>>> wrong
>>>>> way to achieve an inclusive environment.
>>>>> Also I think words like he or she must not be banned. They are
>>>>> neutral words that are totally acceptable in many cases.
>>>>> Avoiding them in most documentation might be fine but having them
>>>>> on a
>>>> bad
>>>>> word list feels extremely wrong to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> In our well meant effort to be woke we sometimes go too far.
>>>>
>>>> You have misunderstood this initiative. Nothing is banned,
>>>> forbidden, struck from the language, or otherwise removed from use.
>>>>
>>>> If you agree that avoiding these words in documentation might be
>>>> fine, then we're on the same page.
>>>>
>>>> Please don't make this into something it's not. Nobody has the
>>>> authority, or even the desire, to forbid you using certain words.
>>>> This tool is only intended to point out places where there *might*
>>>> be a better word choice.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
>>>> @rbowen
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
> @rbowen
>
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
@rbowen
AW: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi Craig,
yeah ... our users use an API that simply has Connections, ReadRequests, WriteRequests, Subscriptions, Fields, ... nothing at all controversal. Also do I think that our codebase in general doesn't use "bad" names or language in the comments. It's just if we're implementing a driver acting as a PROFINET Master, I think it must be ok to name it that way, in documentation, but also in the code ... as everything else will make it difficult for users and especially the maintainers and potential contributors.
And regarding your: Can we convince them to change their names? ... I think it would be easier for me allone to stop global warming in 2 years than to get those stubborn old white men behind these standards to even start thinking about something like that ... I mean ... for the last 30 years they insist that if I send an updated program from my PC to a PLC, that's "downloading". And I think I have never ever worked in a sector that's less inclusive than industial automation (In all of my promotional visits, promoting open-source in the automation industry in the last 4-5 years, I only spoke to a woman once)
Chris
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. September 2021 02:49
An: dev@diversity.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
Hi Christofer,
I don't know plc4x well, but have some generic ideas.
You cannot unilaterally change what you depend on but you can control how users see your interface. So your interface could use inclusive words like primary/secondary and the interface maps these terms into the underlying APIs that might use non-inclusive words.
Perhaps you are already doing this anyway. But if you are required to use terms that are part of the underlying APIs you can "ignore" them in the CLC tool.
So the tool can still be useful in highlighting your API's use of the terms.
Is there any point in raising these questions to "industry standards" groups that your underlying platforms are members of?
HTH,
Craig
> On Sep 9, 2021, at 1:03 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I just took the question about the CLC to the PLC4X project. There we very quickly noticed that we would be stuck in a dilemma:
>
> We're implementing drivers for protocols that use pretty un-inclusive terms ... A Modbus Master is simply called that, same as A Modbus Slave. A PROFINET Master also simply is called that way. We could now decide to call it something different, but that would definitiely confuse people.
>
> What are your thoughts on this?
>
> Chris
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. September 2021 14:40
> An: dev@diversity.apache.org; Łukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org>;
> private@karaf.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
>
>
>
> On 9/5/21 6:03 PM, Łukasz Dywicki wrote:
>> My feeling is close to Christian's in this regard.
>>
>> Writing docs is usually harder than writing code, especially for for
>> non-native speakers. Similar thing applies to non-native readers of it.
>> Try writing up a piece of PKI description without using "Alice and Bob"
>> and correlated his/her phrases.
>>
>> While I understand that many society groups been going through
>> various troubles now and in the past, I do believe that changing of
>> vocabulary will simply not fix their issues. To be fair I don't know
>> how to write that to not step on somebody's else sensitive toe.
>
> You'll get no disagreement from me on that - anyone who thinks that changing vocabulary will fix everything is fooling themselves. Nope, this is one step out of many. But it's an important step, because it causes us to *think* about how words affect others. And that, in my experience, leads us to think about how *everything* affects others.
> Compassion and empathy start with small gestures. Small steps become larger steps. Thinking that the small step is the entire solution is a mistake. Worse yet, deciding not to take the small step because it's not the entire solution, causes the larger steps to never be considered.
>
>> On 02.09.2021 20:18, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>> When there is a list of "bad" words and a tool that highlights them
>>> then this is exactly how it feels.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> Am Do., 2. Sept. 2021 um 20:05 Uhr schrieb Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/2/21 1:52 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>>>> I do not like this effort. Banning words and pointing them out is
>>>>> the
>>>> wrong
>>>>> way to achieve an inclusive environment.
>>>>> Also I think words like he or she must not be banned. They are
>>>>> neutral words that are totally acceptable in many cases.
>>>>> Avoiding them in most documentation might be fine but having them
>>>>> on a
>>>> bad
>>>>> word list feels extremely wrong to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> In our well meant effort to be woke we sometimes go too far.
>>>>
>>>> You have misunderstood this initiative. Nothing is banned,
>>>> forbidden, struck from the language, or otherwise removed from use.
>>>>
>>>> If you agree that avoiding these words in documentation might be
>>>> fine, then we're on the same page.
>>>>
>>>> Please don't make this into something it's not. Nobody has the
>>>> authority, or even the desire, to forbid you using certain words.
>>>> This tool is only intended to point out places where there *might*
>>>> be a better word choice.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
>>>> @rbowen
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
> @rbowen
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org
Re: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
Posted by Furkan KAMACI <fu...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
It would be nice to have priorities of terms. Like 'master' may have low
importance, and some other words do not. High-priority words can be listed
at the top as red and low priorities as yellow.
Kind Regards,
Furkan KAMACI
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 5:46 AM William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
wrote:
> It could be also nice to whitelist a phrase, such as "Foo Master" but still
> be alerted to other occurences of "Master".
>
> That would solve their 80/20 (maybe 95/5 in this case.)
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021, 19:48 Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Christofer,
> >
> > I don't know plc4x well, but have some generic ideas.
> >
> > You cannot unilaterally change what you depend on but you can control how
> > users see your interface. So your interface could use inclusive words
> like
> > primary/secondary and the interface maps these terms into the underlying
> > APIs that might use non-inclusive words.
> >
> > Perhaps you are already doing this anyway. But if you are required to use
> > terms that are part of the underlying APIs you can "ignore" them in the
> CLC
> > tool.
> >
> > So the tool can still be useful in highlighting your API's use of the
> > terms.
> >
> > Is there any point in raising these questions to "industry standards"
> > groups that your underlying platforms are members of?
> >
> > HTH,
> > Craig
> >
> > > On Sep 9, 2021, at 1:03 PM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I just took the question about the CLC to the PLC4X project. There we
> > very quickly noticed that we would be stuck in a dilemma:
> > >
> > > We're implementing drivers for protocols that use pretty un-inclusive
> > terms ... A Modbus Master is simply called that, same as A Modbus Slave.
> A
> > PROFINET Master also simply is called that way. We could now decide to
> call
> > it something different, but that would definitiely confuse people.
> > >
> > > What are your thoughts on this?
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
> > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. September 2021 14:40
> > > An: dev@diversity.apache.org; Łukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org>;
> > private@karaf.apache.org
> > > Betreff: Re: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/5/21 6:03 PM, Łukasz Dywicki wrote:
> > >> My feeling is close to Christian's in this regard.
> > >>
> > >> Writing docs is usually harder than writing code, especially for for
> > >> non-native speakers. Similar thing applies to non-native readers of
> it.
> > >> Try writing up a piece of PKI description without using "Alice and
> Bob"
> > >> and correlated his/her phrases.
> > >>
> > >> While I understand that many society groups been going through various
> > >> troubles now and in the past, I do believe that changing of vocabulary
> > >> will simply not fix their issues. To be fair I don't know how to write
> > >> that to not step on somebody's else sensitive toe.
> > >
> > > You'll get no disagreement from me on that - anyone who thinks that
> > changing vocabulary will fix everything is fooling themselves. Nope, this
> > is one step out of many. But it's an important step, because it causes us
> > to *think* about how words affect others. And that, in my experience,
> leads
> > us to think about how *everything* affects others.
> > > Compassion and empathy start with small gestures. Small steps become
> > larger steps. Thinking that the small step is the entire solution is a
> > mistake. Worse yet, deciding not to take the small step because it's not
> > the entire solution, causes the larger steps to never be considered.
> > >
> > >> On 02.09.2021 20:18, Christian Schneider wrote:
> > >>> When there is a list of "bad" words and a tool that highlights them
> > >>> then this is exactly how it feels.
> > >>>
> > >>> Christian
> > >>>
> > >>> Am Do., 2. Sept. 2021 um 20:05 Uhr schrieb Rich Bowen <
> > rbowen@rcbowen.com>:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 9/2/21 1:52 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> > >>>>> I do not like this effort. Banning words and pointing them out is
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>> wrong
> > >>>>> way to achieve an inclusive environment.
> > >>>>> Also I think words like he or she must not be banned. They are
> > >>>>> neutral words that are totally acceptable in many cases.
> > >>>>> Avoiding them in most documentation might be fine but having them
> > >>>>> on a
> > >>>> bad
> > >>>>> word list feels extremely wrong to me.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In our well meant effort to be woke we sometimes go too far.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You have misunderstood this initiative. Nothing is banned,
> > >>>> forbidden, struck from the language, or otherwise removed from use.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If you agree that avoiding these words in documentation might be
> > >>>> fine, then we're on the same page.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please don't make this into something it's not. Nobody has the
> > >>>> authority, or even the desire, to forbid you using certain words.
> > >>>> This tool is only intended to point out places where there *might*
> > >>>> be a better word choice.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
> > >>>> @rbowen
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
> > > @rbowen
> >
> > Craig L Russell
> > clr@apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
It could be also nice to whitelist a phrase, such as "Foo Master" but still
be alerted to other occurences of "Master".
That would solve their 80/20 (maybe 95/5 in this case.)
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021, 19:48 Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Christofer,
>
> I don't know plc4x well, but have some generic ideas.
>
> You cannot unilaterally change what you depend on but you can control how
> users see your interface. So your interface could use inclusive words like
> primary/secondary and the interface maps these terms into the underlying
> APIs that might use non-inclusive words.
>
> Perhaps you are already doing this anyway. But if you are required to use
> terms that are part of the underlying APIs you can "ignore" them in the CLC
> tool.
>
> So the tool can still be useful in highlighting your API's use of the
> terms.
>
> Is there any point in raising these questions to "industry standards"
> groups that your underlying platforms are members of?
>
> HTH,
> Craig
>
> > On Sep 9, 2021, at 1:03 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I just took the question about the CLC to the PLC4X project. There we
> very quickly noticed that we would be stuck in a dilemma:
> >
> > We're implementing drivers for protocols that use pretty un-inclusive
> terms ... A Modbus Master is simply called that, same as A Modbus Slave. A
> PROFINET Master also simply is called that way. We could now decide to call
> it something different, but that would definitiely confuse people.
> >
> > What are your thoughts on this?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. September 2021 14:40
> > An: dev@diversity.apache.org; Łukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org>;
> private@karaf.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/5/21 6:03 PM, Łukasz Dywicki wrote:
> >> My feeling is close to Christian's in this regard.
> >>
> >> Writing docs is usually harder than writing code, especially for for
> >> non-native speakers. Similar thing applies to non-native readers of it.
> >> Try writing up a piece of PKI description without using "Alice and Bob"
> >> and correlated his/her phrases.
> >>
> >> While I understand that many society groups been going through various
> >> troubles now and in the past, I do believe that changing of vocabulary
> >> will simply not fix their issues. To be fair I don't know how to write
> >> that to not step on somebody's else sensitive toe.
> >
> > You'll get no disagreement from me on that - anyone who thinks that
> changing vocabulary will fix everything is fooling themselves. Nope, this
> is one step out of many. But it's an important step, because it causes us
> to *think* about how words affect others. And that, in my experience, leads
> us to think about how *everything* affects others.
> > Compassion and empathy start with small gestures. Small steps become
> larger steps. Thinking that the small step is the entire solution is a
> mistake. Worse yet, deciding not to take the small step because it's not
> the entire solution, causes the larger steps to never be considered.
> >
> >> On 02.09.2021 20:18, Christian Schneider wrote:
> >>> When there is a list of "bad" words and a tool that highlights them
> >>> then this is exactly how it feels.
> >>>
> >>> Christian
> >>>
> >>> Am Do., 2. Sept. 2021 um 20:05 Uhr schrieb Rich Bowen <
> rbowen@rcbowen.com>:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/2/21 1:52 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> >>>>> I do not like this effort. Banning words and pointing them out is
> >>>>> the
> >>>> wrong
> >>>>> way to achieve an inclusive environment.
> >>>>> Also I think words like he or she must not be banned. They are
> >>>>> neutral words that are totally acceptable in many cases.
> >>>>> Avoiding them in most documentation might be fine but having them
> >>>>> on a
> >>>> bad
> >>>>> word list feels extremely wrong to me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In our well meant effort to be woke we sometimes go too far.
> >>>>
> >>>> You have misunderstood this initiative. Nothing is banned,
> >>>> forbidden, struck from the language, or otherwise removed from use.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you agree that avoiding these words in documentation might be
> >>>> fine, then we're on the same page.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please don't make this into something it's not. Nobody has the
> >>>> authority, or even the desire, to forbid you using certain words.
> >>>> This tool is only intended to point out places where there *might*
> >>>> be a better word choice.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
> >>>> @rbowen
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > --
> > Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
> > @rbowen
>
> Craig L Russell
> clr@apache.org
>
>
Re: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
Hi Christofer,
I don't know plc4x well, but have some generic ideas.
You cannot unilaterally change what you depend on but you can control how users see your interface. So your interface could use inclusive words like primary/secondary and the interface maps these terms into the underlying APIs that might use non-inclusive words.
Perhaps you are already doing this anyway. But if you are required to use terms that are part of the underlying APIs you can "ignore" them in the CLC tool.
So the tool can still be useful in highlighting your API's use of the terms.
Is there any point in raising these questions to "industry standards" groups that your underlying platforms are members of?
HTH,
Craig
> On Sep 9, 2021, at 1:03 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I just took the question about the CLC to the PLC4X project. There we very quickly noticed that we would be stuck in a dilemma:
>
> We're implementing drivers for protocols that use pretty un-inclusive terms ... A Modbus Master is simply called that, same as A Modbus Slave. A PROFINET Master also simply is called that way. We could now decide to call it something different, but that would definitiely confuse people.
>
> What are your thoughts on this?
>
> Chris
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. September 2021 14:40
> An: dev@diversity.apache.org; Łukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org>; private@karaf.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
>
>
>
> On 9/5/21 6:03 PM, Łukasz Dywicki wrote:
>> My feeling is close to Christian's in this regard.
>>
>> Writing docs is usually harder than writing code, especially for for
>> non-native speakers. Similar thing applies to non-native readers of it.
>> Try writing up a piece of PKI description without using "Alice and Bob"
>> and correlated his/her phrases.
>>
>> While I understand that many society groups been going through various
>> troubles now and in the past, I do believe that changing of vocabulary
>> will simply not fix their issues. To be fair I don't know how to write
>> that to not step on somebody's else sensitive toe.
>
> You'll get no disagreement from me on that - anyone who thinks that changing vocabulary will fix everything is fooling themselves. Nope, this is one step out of many. But it's an important step, because it causes us to *think* about how words affect others. And that, in my experience, leads us to think about how *everything* affects others.
> Compassion and empathy start with small gestures. Small steps become larger steps. Thinking that the small step is the entire solution is a mistake. Worse yet, deciding not to take the small step because it's not the entire solution, causes the larger steps to never be considered.
>
>> On 02.09.2021 20:18, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>> When there is a list of "bad" words and a tool that highlights them
>>> then this is exactly how it feels.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> Am Do., 2. Sept. 2021 um 20:05 Uhr schrieb Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/2/21 1:52 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>>>> I do not like this effort. Banning words and pointing them out is
>>>>> the
>>>> wrong
>>>>> way to achieve an inclusive environment.
>>>>> Also I think words like he or she must not be banned. They are
>>>>> neutral words that are totally acceptable in many cases.
>>>>> Avoiding them in most documentation might be fine but having them
>>>>> on a
>>>> bad
>>>>> word list feels extremely wrong to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> In our well meant effort to be woke we sometimes go too far.
>>>>
>>>> You have misunderstood this initiative. Nothing is banned,
>>>> forbidden, struck from the language, or otherwise removed from use.
>>>>
>>>> If you agree that avoiding these words in documentation might be
>>>> fine, then we're on the same page.
>>>>
>>>> Please don't make this into something it's not. Nobody has the
>>>> authority, or even the desire, to forbid you using certain words.
>>>> This tool is only intended to point out places where there *might*
>>>> be a better word choice.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
>>>> @rbowen
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
> @rbowen
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org
AW: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi all,
I just took the question about the CLC to the PLC4X project. There we very quickly noticed that we would be stuck in a dilemma:
We're implementing drivers for protocols that use pretty un-inclusive terms ... A Modbus Master is simply called that, same as A Modbus Slave. A PROFINET Master also simply is called that way. We could now decide to call it something different, but that would definitiely confuse people.
What are your thoughts on this?
Chris
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. September 2021 14:40
An: dev@diversity.apache.org; Łukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org>; private@karaf.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
On 9/5/21 6:03 PM, Łukasz Dywicki wrote:
> My feeling is close to Christian's in this regard.
>
> Writing docs is usually harder than writing code, especially for for
> non-native speakers. Similar thing applies to non-native readers of it.
> Try writing up a piece of PKI description without using "Alice and Bob"
> and correlated his/her phrases.
>
> While I understand that many society groups been going through various
> troubles now and in the past, I do believe that changing of vocabulary
> will simply not fix their issues. To be fair I don't know how to write
> that to not step on somebody's else sensitive toe.
You'll get no disagreement from me on that - anyone who thinks that changing vocabulary will fix everything is fooling themselves. Nope, this is one step out of many. But it's an important step, because it causes us to *think* about how words affect others. And that, in my experience, leads us to think about how *everything* affects others.
Compassion and empathy start with small gestures. Small steps become larger steps. Thinking that the small step is the entire solution is a mistake. Worse yet, deciding not to take the small step because it's not the entire solution, causes the larger steps to never be considered.
> On 02.09.2021 20:18, Christian Schneider wrote:
>> When there is a list of "bad" words and a tool that highlights them
>> then this is exactly how it feels.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> Am Do., 2. Sept. 2021 um 20:05 Uhr schrieb Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/2/21 1:52 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>>> I do not like this effort. Banning words and pointing them out is
>>>> the
>>> wrong
>>>> way to achieve an inclusive environment.
>>>> Also I think words like he or she must not be banned. They are
>>>> neutral words that are totally acceptable in many cases.
>>>> Avoiding them in most documentation might be fine but having them
>>>> on a
>>> bad
>>>> word list feels extremely wrong to me.
>>>>
>>>> In our well meant effort to be woke we sometimes go too far.
>>>
>>> You have misunderstood this initiative. Nothing is banned,
>>> forbidden, struck from the language, or otherwise removed from use.
>>>
>>> If you agree that avoiding these words in documentation might be
>>> fine, then we're on the same page.
>>>
>>> Please don't make this into something it's not. Nobody has the
>>> authority, or even the desire, to forbid you using certain words.
>>> This tool is only intended to point out places where there *might*
>>> be a better word choice.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
>>> @rbowen
>>>
>>
>>
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
@rbowen
Re: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 9/5/21 6:03 PM, Łukasz Dywicki wrote:
> My feeling is close to Christian's in this regard.
>
> Writing docs is usually harder than writing code, especially for for
> non-native speakers. Similar thing applies to non-native readers of it.
> Try writing up a piece of PKI description without using "Alice and Bob"
> and correlated his/her phrases.
>
> While I understand that many society groups been going through various
> troubles now and in the past, I do believe that changing of vocabulary
> will simply not fix their issues. To be fair I don't know how to write
> that to not step on somebody's else sensitive toe.
You'll get no disagreement from me on that - anyone who thinks that
changing vocabulary will fix everything is fooling themselves. Nope,
this is one step out of many. But it's an important step, because it
causes us to *think* about how words affect others. And that, in my
experience, leads us to think about how *everything* affects others.
Compassion and empathy start with small gestures. Small steps become
larger steps. Thinking that the small step is the entire solution is a
mistake. Worse yet, deciding not to take the small step because it's not
the entire solution, causes the larger steps to never be considered.
> On 02.09.2021 20:18, Christian Schneider wrote:
>> When there is a list of "bad" words and a tool that highlights them then
>> this is exactly how it feels.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> Am Do., 2. Sept. 2021 um 20:05 Uhr schrieb Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/2/21 1:52 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>>> I do not like this effort. Banning words and pointing them out is the
>>> wrong
>>>> way to achieve an inclusive environment.
>>>> Also I think words like he or she must not be banned. They are neutral
>>>> words that are totally acceptable in many cases.
>>>> Avoiding them in most documentation might be fine but having them on a
>>> bad
>>>> word list feels extremely wrong to me.
>>>>
>>>> In our well meant effort to be woke we sometimes go too far.
>>>
>>> You have misunderstood this initiative. Nothing is banned, forbidden,
>>> struck from the language, or otherwise removed from use.
>>>
>>> If you agree that avoiding these words in documentation might be fine,
>>> then we're on the same page.
>>>
>>> Please don't make this into something it's not. Nobody has the
>>> authority, or even the desire, to forbid you using certain words. This
>>> tool is only intended to point out places where there *might* be a
>>> better word choice.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
>>> @rbowen
>>>
>>
>>
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
@rbowen
Re: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
Posted by Łukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org>.
My feeling is close to Christian's in this regard.
Writing docs is usually harder than writing code, especially for for
non-native speakers. Similar thing applies to non-native readers of it.
Try writing up a piece of PKI description without using "Alice and Bob"
and correlated his/her phrases.
While I understand that many society groups been going through various
troubles now and in the past, I do believe that changing of vocabulary
will simply not fix their issues. To be fair I don't know how to write
that to not step on somebody's else sensitive toe.
Best,
Łukasz
On 02.09.2021 20:18, Christian Schneider wrote:
> When there is a list of "bad" words and a tool that highlights them then
> this is exactly how it feels.
>
> Christian
>
> Am Do., 2. Sept. 2021 um 20:05 Uhr schrieb Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/2/21 1:52 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>> I do not like this effort. Banning words and pointing them out is the
>> wrong
>>> way to achieve an inclusive environment.
>>> Also I think words like he or she must not be banned. They are neutral
>>> words that are totally acceptable in many cases.
>>> Avoiding them in most documentation might be fine but having them on a
>> bad
>>> word list feels extremely wrong to me.
>>>
>>> In our well meant effort to be woke we sometimes go too far.
>>
>> You have misunderstood this initiative. Nothing is banned, forbidden,
>> struck from the language, or otherwise removed from use.
>>
>> If you agree that avoiding these words in documentation might be fine,
>> then we're on the same page.
>>
>> Please don't make this into something it's not. Nobody has the
>> authority, or even the desire, to forbid you using certain words. This
>> tool is only intended to point out places where there *might* be a
>> better word choice.
>>
>> --
>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
>> @rbowen
>>
>
>
Re: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
When there is a list of "bad" words and a tool that highlights them then
this is exactly how it feels.
Christian
Am Do., 2. Sept. 2021 um 20:05 Uhr schrieb Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>:
>
>
> On 9/2/21 1:52 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> > I do not like this effort. Banning words and pointing them out is the
> wrong
> > way to achieve an inclusive environment.
> > Also I think words like he or she must not be banned. They are neutral
> > words that are totally acceptable in many cases.
> > Avoiding them in most documentation might be fine but having them on a
> bad
> > word list feels extremely wrong to me.
> >
> > In our well meant effort to be woke we sometimes go too far.
>
> You have misunderstood this initiative. Nothing is banned, forbidden,
> struck from the language, or otherwise removed from use.
>
> If you agree that avoiding these words in documentation might be fine,
> then we're on the same page.
>
> Please don't make this into something it's not. Nobody has the
> authority, or even the desire, to forbid you using certain words. This
> tool is only intended to point out places where there *might* be a
> better word choice.
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
> @rbowen
>
--
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Computer Scientist
http://www.adobe.com
Re: Conscious Language Checker at the ASF
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 9/2/21 1:52 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> I do not like this effort. Banning words and pointing them out is the wrong
> way to achieve an inclusive environment.
> Also I think words like he or she must not be banned. They are neutral
> words that are totally acceptable in many cases.
> Avoiding them in most documentation might be fine but having them on a bad
> word list feels extremely wrong to me.
>
> In our well meant effort to be woke we sometimes go too far.
You have misunderstood this initiative. Nothing is banned, forbidden,
struck from the language, or otherwise removed from use.
If you agree that avoiding these words in documentation might be fine,
then we're on the same page.
Please don't make this into something it's not. Nobody has the
authority, or even the desire, to forbid you using certain words. This
tool is only intended to point out places where there *might* be a
better word choice.
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
@rbowen