On Wed, 2020-09-16 at 14:13 -0700, akuster808 wrote:
On 7/27/20 6:09 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
The OE TSC recognises there are issues related to inclusive language which the project needs to address and that we need a plan for doing so moving forward. It is unclear how much change the project members wish to see or can cope with at this point in time, nor how much help is available to make changes. It is noted that whilst steps were proposed in the email thread discussion, those have as yet not been acted upon.
There are some steps the TSC believes the project can take:
a) Going forward all new code and new variables should use inclusive language. We will rely on the usual peer review process of changes to help catch issues and request the communities help in doing so but this becomes standard policy with immediate effect.
b) We defer any potential "master" branch name change until upstream git's direction becomes clearer. This is one of the most invasive potential changes and if we do change it, we need to get it right and make a decision based upon tooling support and general wider community consensus.
c) We start looking at the function names and patch filenames for problematic language and accept patches to change those straight away. This area is much less invasive and lower risk.
d) We create a list of the potentially problematic variable names on the wiki so we can understand scope and what kinds of work is needed to form a better plan, including understanding the potential migration paths for changes.
Where do we stand on a plan? I noticed a patch already got applied to change names. The name change in that patch, is that "wording" change we should adopt?