Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Or, if we just fix these existing occurrences as a one-off there'll be > no existing examples of it in-tree, and as people tend to imitate > existing documentation they're unlikely to introduce new > occurrences. I suspect that may be a bit too optimistic. It is too easy to discuss interaction among users and introduce pronouns to refer to them, and when it happens, it is far easier to have a document to point at and tell them why we want them to rephrase if not how exactly. For that reason, I'd prefer to have some word about the desire to make examples and explanations gender-neutral in the guidelines. The mechanics we recommend to achieve the goal does not have to be specified if we want brevity---that can be learned by imitating existing practices. > If and when Felipe's <20210611202819.47077-1-felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> > is applied how small is the diff you'll still have rebased on top of > that? I just retried a "competing" merge that got ugly ;-) Between Derrick's two "singular they" patches (one for comments, the other for docs) and Felipe's two patches (the same split), they touch identical base text. Only the way they neuter the description is different, and to me the latter feels a bit more ESL friendly. So, the main things that are missing from Felipe's version that we may want to build on top before the whole discussion can be concluded are: - Derrick's "typofix" patch, but if I recall correctly it needed a fix-up in one of its hunks? - Guidelines; you had a more generic readability tips that would (incidentally) result in nudging the writers to be more gender neutral, which I think is going in the right direction, but I do prefer to see an explicit mention of gender-neutrality as one bullet item. Thanks.
