Re: inclusive language


Josef Holzmayr
 

Just focusing on points that are prominent to me. Comments inline.

Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 11:12 Uhr schrieb Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@...>:
I don't see that anyone can realistically argue against 1 for the
reasons I mention above, regardless of what they might think.

My personal position (not a project one) is that I do see the issues in
the terminology and I appreciate the community's desire to want to do
something about it, I want to support that. I do however worry that its
going to cause weeks of work in dealing with the fallout from
changes and a lot of that will end up falling to me personally as few
people step up to do that kind of thing beyond the first patch.
Fully agreed. One of the things I loathe most is that someone puts
burdens on us (and you specifically, Richard!), just to make
themselves feel better, like "Hey, I did the rename, I'm awesome!".
This has to be avoided. And I do not realistically see that happening,
hence I oppose renaming just for the sake of renaming.

On a more philosophical note, this sounds very much like "rewriting"
history. Not in the exact sense as git does not forget anything, but
in the face-value meaning. And, again in my explicitly own opinion,
that has never ever worked. I always vote for old errors and mistakes
to be kept visible, so there can be lessons learned. This should not
be taken too easily. "We have always been at war with Eastasia".

My $.02

Join openembedded-architecture@lists.openembedded.org to automatically receive all group messages.