On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 10:09:24AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:15:07PM +0200, Victor Toso wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 10:03:10AM +0200, Kevin Pouget wrote: > > > > Hello SPICE community, > > > > > > > > following Chris Wright (Red Hat CTO) blog post on "Making open > > > > source more inclusive by eradicating problematic language" [1], > > > > I would like to suggest that we have a look at SPICE source > > > > code to find out if/where such language is used and how to > > > > remove it. > > > > > > > > To illustrate the motivations of this move, consider the phrase > > > > "the final solution". I am quite sure you would agree that > > > > these words cannot be used inside a project. You would agree > > > > because the WWII events are still in minds and not so ancient > > > > yet. Git "master", or the "master/slave" pattern may not > > > > trigger similar thoughts if your ancestors didn't suffer > > > > slavery; "whitelist/blacklist" neither, if the color of your > > > > skin doesn't get you into trouble (white=allow, black=deny). > > > > Overall, I would advise, when thinking about these questions, > > > > not to forget on which side your history/country/skin > > > > color/sexual orientation sits you. If it's the oppressor side, > > > > you're not at the right place to say it's not relevant. > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > I had a quick `grep` look at SPICE code base, searching for > > > > `blacklist/whitelist/slave` and I could only find very few > > > > occurrences of these words, which is nice. Can you find other > > > > problem words? > > > > > > > > `master` is used for git default's branch, but not much > > > > elsewhere. Let's discuss if we could get rid of this one, for > > > > instance changing it to `main` (just a suggestion). I don't > > > > think that it can break that many things (only the CI comes to > > > > my mind, where the `master` branch may be treated differently) > > > > as git name default branch's name is often omitted in the usual > > > > workflows. > > > > > > > > Please share your thoughts about this > > > > > > Not a native english speaker but I've read a few discussions > > > around the user of master as git as in master copy instead of > > > master/slave. Another examples of the use of master from native > > > speakers included master as in school teacher or someone that is > > > in charge of something (the offense being where the subject of > > > control is the slave). > > > > > > Still, I don't really mind to changing it to main, even more if > > > there are people that feel this can really be offensive in some > > > way.. > > > > I think the primary downside in changing the branch name is if we > > end up with different branch names chosen by each project. There is > > value in the fact that essentially every project uses the same > > branch name for their latest development branch, as it gives end > > users consistent expectations. > > > > I'm in favour of changing the branch name, but my inclination is > > to wait and see a little longer, in order to identify what the > > new defacto standard ends up being. "main" is a good bet as a new > > standard, but it would be nice to see it "in action". > > > > I'd be looking for two possible signs > > > > Whether the Git maintainers themselves decide to standardize > > on a new term. > > > > What GitHub actually decide upon & roll out. > > > > Either of those two decisions will set a defacto standard across a > > vast number of projects, and thus it will be beneficial to have > > alignment with those decisisons. > > Hi, > I have different feeling about these changes. On one side I agree with > Michal that these changes appears positive but they are potentially > aggravating the real issue just hiding the problem. I think it is a real stretch of the imagination to claim changing the vocabulary is making the issue worse. The vocabulary change is certainly is not a solution to any of the issues, it is just one quite small piece of the puzzle. It is simply a very easy piece to address in the course of development, with essentially no real technical downside. In many cases changing the vocabulary will actually improve things, because master/slave and whitelist/blacklist are often poorly fitting metaphors in the first place. > About the words I think "master" have multiple meaning, removing blindly > because some meaning could remember some bad memories looks excessive. I hope this wasn't intentional, but aluding to slavery as "some bad memories" comes across as really uncaring :-( The history of slavery resulted in deaths of millions of people and is something whose after effects continue to be felt by people in a very real way to this very day. It isn't confined to the past or memories. > And even if this word is used in the "master&slave" reference hinting > human slavery there are on the other side many uses (like master&slave > relationship in electronic circuit or master&slave used in communication > or in psychology) were this is far from human slavery. > "blacklist" is very similar, it's used in a lot of places without negative > references, "black" is simply a color which, being usually associated > with no light is seen negative, not for race discrimination (like yin > and yang concept). I checked multiple dictionaries and hardly find > races references for "blacklist". For the same reasons we should remove > wording like "dark", "white", "yellow", "black". I'll simply link to this doc which I feel gives a good description of the rationale for change to add to the blog post that was mentioned at the start of the thread. https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html Several notable projects have gone through the cleanup exercise to no ill effect. As I mentioned above, my experiance is that when finding use of the vocabulary, it often turned out to be a badly fitting metaphor in the first place, so was beneficial to change it no matter what. > About the "master" branch technically can be changed easily. I won't > wait a "de-facto" change, if all project would wait a "de-facto" change > the only name would be "master"! So if most of the group agree to change > and like "main" I would just rename to "main". Of course if everyone waited for others to make a decision first, nothing would happen. That's not the current situation though. The two case I mention are of communities actively considering the change. In the (unlikely) event that both decide not to change the default branch name, then certainly spice should go ahead and do a unilateral change if maintainers think it is worthwhile. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel