You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@camel.apache.org by Andrea Cosentino <an...@gmail.com> on 2020/11/09 10:33:05 UTC
Problematic language in our repositories
Hello all,
As reported by Rich Bowen, we still have references to problematic language
in our codebase
A lazy github search shows, of the words that we've been focusing on:
Slave
https://github.com/apache/camel/search?q=slave
30
Master
https://github.com/apache/camel/search?q=master
567
Whitelist
https://github.com/apache/camel/search?q=whitelist
72
Blacklist
https://github.com/apache/camel/search?q=blacklist
65
I think we should the possible to remove these refs.
Do we all agree on this?
Re: Problematic language in our repositories
Posted by Otavio Rodolfo Piske <an...@gmail.com>.
My .2 cents:
I don't see any problems replacing the terms.
As pointed out, they are usually replaced by terms that are clearer and
usually represent better their intentions (+ 0.5).
I know that I am fairly new and I don't intend to lecture anyone on
community building. However, I think that, maybe we should consider the
fact that they also make the community more inviting to others (+0.5).
So, for me, that would be a +1 for replacing the terms.
Kind regards
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 7:00 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Fully agree, and I have to same concern in other projects (Karaf,
> ActiveMQ, …).
>
> 1. These are technical terms without any "allusion"
> 2. I don’t like with "company" policy are pushed to open source project.
> Of course, it can be openly discussed.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 27 nov. 2020 à 19:03, Onder SEZGIN <on...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > +1 to Guillaume.
> >
> > I would not like to act like Camus or Sartre on these kinds of matters,
> to
> > me, it is simple, if you think there is barrier, then there is. Overall
> > meritocracy is covering all these kinds matters and embraceful enough for
> > anything.
> > And these are technical terms.
> > Changing language or phylosophical meta or whatever we call them would
> > never ever solve such kind of problem. Of course it is an act. History
> will
> > live forever with all its problem bringing to today unless erased from
> > everybody's minds.
> > Keeping short and sweet hopefully,
> >
> > I personally see no reason.
> >
> > My 2 cents..
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, 13:16 Maria Arias de Reyna Dominguez, <
> > mariasde@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:14 PM Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2020/11/09 12:49:43, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>> Not really. Those are technical terms, and I don't really see any
> >> benefits
> >>>> in changing them.
> >>>
> >>> I would encourage you to read the various documents at
> >> https://github.com/conscious-lang/conscious-lang-docs regarding the
> >> benefits in changing them.
> >>>
> >>> In short, the benefit is 1) removing barriers to new contributors who
> >> feel marginalized by the terms and 2) objectively clearer language to
> >> explain those technical terms.
> >>>
> >>
> >> If I may... I know I'm fairly new in Camel, but it's true that
> >> language creates conscious and subconscious barriers.
> >>
> >> As white-ish I can't relate with the issues with white/black lists and
> >> master/slave. But I can understand them because when the language used
> >> is "too macho" I tend to be repelled to interact further. This is
> >> usually not a conscious thing I do, but there's some kind of alarm
> >> that starts somewhere in my head telling me it is not a safe space for
> >> me, that people using that language usually are people that hate and
> >> denigrate women and I am not going to be accepted as an equal.
> >>
> >> So, even if I don't feel bad reading those words, I can understand why
> >> other people may feel bad and don't feel comfortable mingling with the
> >> rest of us.
> >>
> >> Changing those words is an easy step for us, there's no real change in
> >> the technology behind, there's nothing that will fundamentally change
> >> for us. We just use a synonym and that's it.
> >>
> >> But this change may attract other developers we are repelling right now.
> >>
> >> +1 for me
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >> María.
> >>
> >>
>
>
--
Otavio R. Piske
http://orpiske.net
Re: Problematic language in our repositories
Posted by Andrea Cosentino <an...@gmail.com>.
This policy is not pushed. They are suggesting of adopting that particular
policy in the ASF repositories.
We can discuss and we can choose if applying it or not.
Il giorno sab 28 nov 2020 alle ore 07:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofre <
jb@nanthrax.net> ha scritto:
> Fully agree, and I have to same concern in other projects (Karaf,
> ActiveMQ, …).
>
> 1. These are technical terms without any "allusion"
> 2. I don’t like with "company" policy are pushed to open source project.
> Of course, it can be openly discussed.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> > Le 27 nov. 2020 à 19:03, Onder SEZGIN <on...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > +1 to Guillaume.
> >
> > I would not like to act like Camus or Sartre on these kinds of matters,
> to
> > me, it is simple, if you think there is barrier, then there is. Overall
> > meritocracy is covering all these kinds matters and embraceful enough for
> > anything.
> > And these are technical terms.
> > Changing language or phylosophical meta or whatever we call them would
> > never ever solve such kind of problem. Of course it is an act. History
> will
> > live forever with all its problem bringing to today unless erased from
> > everybody's minds.
> > Keeping short and sweet hopefully,
> >
> > I personally see no reason.
> >
> > My 2 cents..
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, 13:16 Maria Arias de Reyna Dominguez, <
> > mariasde@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:14 PM Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2020/11/09 12:49:43, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>> Not really. Those are technical terms, and I don't really see any
> >> benefits
> >>>> in changing them.
> >>>
> >>> I would encourage you to read the various documents at
> >> https://github.com/conscious-lang/conscious-lang-docs regarding the
> >> benefits in changing them.
> >>>
> >>> In short, the benefit is 1) removing barriers to new contributors who
> >> feel marginalized by the terms and 2) objectively clearer language to
> >> explain those technical terms.
> >>>
> >>
> >> If I may... I know I'm fairly new in Camel, but it's true that
> >> language creates conscious and subconscious barriers.
> >>
> >> As white-ish I can't relate with the issues with white/black lists and
> >> master/slave. But I can understand them because when the language used
> >> is "too macho" I tend to be repelled to interact further. This is
> >> usually not a conscious thing I do, but there's some kind of alarm
> >> that starts somewhere in my head telling me it is not a safe space for
> >> me, that people using that language usually are people that hate and
> >> denigrate women and I am not going to be accepted as an equal.
> >>
> >> So, even if I don't feel bad reading those words, I can understand why
> >> other people may feel bad and don't feel comfortable mingling with the
> >> rest of us.
> >>
> >> Changing those words is an easy step for us, there's no real change in
> >> the technology behind, there's nothing that will fundamentally change
> >> for us. We just use a synonym and that's it.
> >>
> >> But this change may attract other developers we are repelling right now.
> >>
> >> +1 for me
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >> María.
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: Problematic language in our repositories
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Fully agree, and I have to same concern in other projects (Karaf, ActiveMQ, …).
1. These are technical terms without any "allusion"
2. I don’t like with "company" policy are pushed to open source project. Of course, it can be openly discussed.
Regards
JB
> Le 27 nov. 2020 à 19:03, Onder SEZGIN <on...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> +1 to Guillaume.
>
> I would not like to act like Camus or Sartre on these kinds of matters, to
> me, it is simple, if you think there is barrier, then there is. Overall
> meritocracy is covering all these kinds matters and embraceful enough for
> anything.
> And these are technical terms.
> Changing language or phylosophical meta or whatever we call them would
> never ever solve such kind of problem. Of course it is an act. History will
> live forever with all its problem bringing to today unless erased from
> everybody's minds.
> Keeping short and sweet hopefully,
>
> I personally see no reason.
>
> My 2 cents..
>
> Cheers
>
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, 13:16 Maria Arias de Reyna Dominguez, <
> mariasde@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:14 PM Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2020/11/09 12:49:43, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Not really. Those are technical terms, and I don't really see any
>> benefits
>>>> in changing them.
>>>
>>> I would encourage you to read the various documents at
>> https://github.com/conscious-lang/conscious-lang-docs regarding the
>> benefits in changing them.
>>>
>>> In short, the benefit is 1) removing barriers to new contributors who
>> feel marginalized by the terms and 2) objectively clearer language to
>> explain those technical terms.
>>>
>>
>> If I may... I know I'm fairly new in Camel, but it's true that
>> language creates conscious and subconscious barriers.
>>
>> As white-ish I can't relate with the issues with white/black lists and
>> master/slave. But I can understand them because when the language used
>> is "too macho" I tend to be repelled to interact further. This is
>> usually not a conscious thing I do, but there's some kind of alarm
>> that starts somewhere in my head telling me it is not a safe space for
>> me, that people using that language usually are people that hate and
>> denigrate women and I am not going to be accepted as an equal.
>>
>> So, even if I don't feel bad reading those words, I can understand why
>> other people may feel bad and don't feel comfortable mingling with the
>> rest of us.
>>
>> Changing those words is an easy step for us, there's no real change in
>> the technology behind, there's nothing that will fundamentally change
>> for us. We just use a synonym and that's it.
>>
>> But this change may attract other developers we are repelling right now.
>>
>> +1 for me
>>
>> Cheers!
>> María.
>>
>>
Re: Problematic language in our repositories
Posted by Onder SEZGIN <on...@gmail.com>.
+1 to Guillaume.
I would not like to act like Camus or Sartre on these kinds of matters, to
me, it is simple, if you think there is barrier, then there is. Overall
meritocracy is covering all these kinds matters and embraceful enough for
anything.
And these are technical terms.
Changing language or phylosophical meta or whatever we call them would
never ever solve such kind of problem. Of course it is an act. History will
live forever with all its problem bringing to today unless erased from
everybody's minds.
Keeping short and sweet hopefully,
I personally see no reason.
My 2 cents..
Cheers
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, 13:16 Maria Arias de Reyna Dominguez, <
mariasde@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:14 PM Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2020/11/09 12:49:43, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Not really. Those are technical terms, and I don't really see any
> benefits
> > > in changing them.
> >
> > I would encourage you to read the various documents at
> https://github.com/conscious-lang/conscious-lang-docs regarding the
> benefits in changing them.
> >
> > In short, the benefit is 1) removing barriers to new contributors who
> feel marginalized by the terms and 2) objectively clearer language to
> explain those technical terms.
> >
>
> If I may... I know I'm fairly new in Camel, but it's true that
> language creates conscious and subconscious barriers.
>
> As white-ish I can't relate with the issues with white/black lists and
> master/slave. But I can understand them because when the language used
> is "too macho" I tend to be repelled to interact further. This is
> usually not a conscious thing I do, but there's some kind of alarm
> that starts somewhere in my head telling me it is not a safe space for
> me, that people using that language usually are people that hate and
> denigrate women and I am not going to be accepted as an equal.
>
> So, even if I don't feel bad reading those words, I can understand why
> other people may feel bad and don't feel comfortable mingling with the
> rest of us.
>
> Changing those words is an easy step for us, there's no real change in
> the technology behind, there's nothing that will fundamentally change
> for us. We just use a synonym and that's it.
>
> But this change may attract other developers we are repelling right now.
>
> +1 for me
>
> Cheers!
> María.
>
>
Re: Problematic language in our repositories
Posted by Maria Arias de Reyna Dominguez <ma...@redhat.com>.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:14 PM Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2020/11/09 12:49:43, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Not really. Those are technical terms, and I don't really see any benefits
> > in changing them.
>
> I would encourage you to read the various documents at https://github.com/conscious-lang/conscious-lang-docs regarding the benefits in changing them.
>
> In short, the benefit is 1) removing barriers to new contributors who feel marginalized by the terms and 2) objectively clearer language to explain those technical terms.
>
If I may... I know I'm fairly new in Camel, but it's true that
language creates conscious and subconscious barriers.
As white-ish I can't relate with the issues with white/black lists and
master/slave. But I can understand them because when the language used
is "too macho" I tend to be repelled to interact further. This is
usually not a conscious thing I do, but there's some kind of alarm
that starts somewhere in my head telling me it is not a safe space for
me, that people using that language usually are people that hate and
denigrate women and I am not going to be accepted as an equal.
So, even if I don't feel bad reading those words, I can understand why
other people may feel bad and don't feel comfortable mingling with the
rest of us.
Changing those words is an easy step for us, there's no real change in
the technology behind, there's nothing that will fundamentally change
for us. We just use a synonym and that's it.
But this change may attract other developers we are repelling right now.
+1 for me
Cheers!
María.
Re: Problematic language in our repositories
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org>.
On 2020/11/09 12:49:43, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org> wrote:
> Not really. Those are technical terms, and I don't really see any benefits
> in changing them.
I would encourage you to read the various documents at https://github.com/conscious-lang/conscious-lang-docs regarding the benefits in changing them.
In short, the benefit is 1) removing barriers to new contributors who feel marginalized by the terms and 2) objectively clearer language to explain those technical terms.
Re: Problematic language in our repositories
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>.
Not really. Those are technical terms, and I don't really see any benefits
in changing them.
Le lun. 9 nov. 2020 à 11:33, Andrea Cosentino <an...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Hello all,
>
> As reported by Rich Bowen, we still have references to problematic language
> in our codebase
>
> A lazy github search shows, of the words that we've been focusing on:
>
> Slave
> https://github.com/apache/camel/search?q=slave
> 30
>
> Master
> https://github.com/apache/camel/search?q=master
> 567
>
> Whitelist
> https://github.com/apache/camel/search?q=whitelist
> 72
>
> Blacklist
> https://github.com/apache/camel/search?q=blacklist
> 65
>
> I think we should the possible to remove these refs.
>
> Do we all agree on this?
>
--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet