Hi Rich, not going to argue about what you said, as most of that I agree with - but for the sake of discussion (which this thread is not a right place, but perhaps some time again on Apache con, with a beer or tea) - I would like to understand the part of your response: ***This entire effort, across the entire software industry, is about creating a place where people feel part of the team, rather than outsiders***
I'm not sure how my colour, race or sex could let me feel like an outsider to any project I want to contribute to (due to my personal preference/color/sex is not emphasized/mentioned in the project)? If I want to contribute, I will contribute, this is my decision/good will. Or I can behave childishly like a 3-year kid who feels parents are not paying enough attention, so he/she/it (I'm being inclusive here, am I not?) is screaming and seeking attention. Again, to me (and it seems only to me...I am a weird one, indeed) this is pure politics - but, of course, I have nothing against choosing the words more carefully and using more generic/softer/correct terms (as you said "... is more about choosing the right words/phrases") - but where is the limit/boundaries when a person can be offended by some words, or feel excluded? i.e. I can be "offended" or feel "excluded" because our project uses blue colour... (e.g. I like red). You get my point, I'm sure. I'm ending my involvement in this email thread, as I have no intention to "offend" or feel anyone "unwelcome" by my opinions... it's about time to let the inclusivity bloom since everything has been so "exclusive" for the last 20 years... On Mon, 24 May 2021 at 14:47, Rich Bowen <rbo...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 2021/05/24 09:13:45, Andrija Panic <andrija.pa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > (it's interesting to see that " sanity check " (a very common, > > non-offensive wording used in coding) is considered inappropriate (by > > whatever authority...???) > > I don't think that "inappropriate" is really the point here. Rather, the > goal is to avoid terms that have other, unrelated meanings, which may have > implications for members of your project community. "Sanity" has no actual > meaning in software, but it does have a meaning to actual humans in your > community who suffer from mental health issues. And in avoiding terms like > that, it gives an opportunity to use terms that actually mean something > useful. You are not checking the "sanity" of your software, as it has none? > What are you checking? Community clearly by choosing words that say what > you actually mean. This, in turn, makes it easier for those for whom > English is not a first language to understand what is being communicated. > > In general, avoiding jargon, colloquialisms, and slang helps expand the > number of people who can read your words with clarity and understanding. > > > ( also "he/she" is considered "gender" and that also seems > > inappropriate????? - I can't believe this nonsense (otherwise, it may be > > grammatical errors, and yes, those should be corrected) > > While you are, of course, welcome to think that this is nonsense, it's > meaningful to those individuals in your community who identify as neither > "he" nor "she", and feel that they are being excluded by these word > choices. Do you want them to feel unwelcome? No, of course you don't. So > choosing words that include everyone is good for you, too, because it > extends a welcome to a larger contributor community, which, in turn, > increases the opportunity for innovation. > > Focusing on "offense" and "inappropriate" and so on is only a small part > of the story. Rather, a conscious language effort (or "inclusive language," > if you prefer) is more about choosing the right words/phrases than about > avoiding "bad" ones. This entire effort, across the entire software > industry, is about creating a place where people feel part of the team, > rather than outsiders. Words matter, and this is just one way to use words > to craft such a place. > > -- Andrija Panić
