They created a problem that was not there and then "solved it". Aren't they
marvelous? Solving social problems by means of technical name changes does not
solve either technical or social problems. This has been my experience
repeatedly. Are we now not able to include a color in descriptions of technical
features? What does that do to the black and white bands on resistor color
codes? After all, white (9) is a higher number than black (1) which is, of
course, blatant racial profiling, right?
What social problem is this supposed to solve? Is it real or is it made up? As a
woman neologisms such as "hesh" and "hir" do not reassure me and make me more
comfortable in the various technical communities I join because of my interests.
A few times, not NEARLY as often as four decades ago or more, I've taken
advantage of the fact you guys cannot see me and draw inferences mostly based on
such technical expertise as I demonstrate. Then I let my being a woman leak out,
I use my name in addition to my usual signature glyph. Some of the men cannot
accept a woman being a peer. Recognition for expertise, ability, and knowledge
is WAY WAY more important when you want to create an "inclusive" group than
choice or pronouns. I figure I am included when people automatically presume I
am part of "you guys" when they use that phrase. When I am accepted the pronouns
drop out of importance.
I an not here to be a "gurl". I am here as somebody who commits sysadmin
functions on a small two man* office for me and my partner. I can extrapolate
the problems we will face to those people who perform system administration
functions for collections of small businesses on a consulting basis. Customers
will see their need to take actions or accept "somebody snooping on their
settings" on the consultant. You guys at Apache are in the clear. The customers
won't be charging their anger to your karma. I am not in technical groups to
flaunt my femininity or lack there of. I am not here partner hunting. I am not
here as a woman. I am here as a user who has some level of technical capability.
I've not been demonstrating it lately because mostly it works and when it does
not I make rules for myself that do work. And my partner is even better at
making rules. Since SARE died sharing the rules has sort of fallen away. So I
tend to be silent until I am faced with "it just works" quit working. I am
human. I resent that imposition for reasons I rather consider spurious and
utterly without technical merit.
I see a change being made to solve a phantom social problem pandering to some
truly violent people some of whom brag about being trained Marxist agitators.
That change causes technical and social problems for a class of your (admittedly
non paying) customers to whom you pass along the need to make changes for no
good technical reason. These violent people will never be appeased by changes
you make. So why bother to make the changes? Rather ask, no demand, your lazy
assed politicians to do their jobs.
As for the social problem, Kevin, I am afraid that as I see it you are a part of
the problem not part of any applicable social or technical solution.
{^_^}
* "two man" is less typing than "two person" and less silly than any other three
letter neologism that recognizes "man" is really "male" and "female" and 307
different shades in between. Man means human here. That is something that so far
is all inclusive. I do not expect that to last forever. The term has to grow to fit.
On 20200714 05:28:56, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I think you are reading other people's take on things. Clearer language was an
added bonus but never the reason. The reason was to remove racially charged
language and 4.0 was a good opportunity to do it since the major bump would
allow for disruption. Further, this article was what reminded me to bring it
up:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-ncsc-to-stop-using-whitelist-and-blacklist-due-to-racial-stereotyping/
Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:23 AM Dave Goodrich <dgoodr...@greenfieldin.org
<mailto:dgoodr...@greenfieldin.org>> wrote:
The wrong side of history? Are you kidding me?
I have been a long time user of Apache products. SA has been my go to
solution for decades. Until this morning, I was without opinion on this
issue and I even understood, and agreed, that the change had merit for
clarity. But, 'go along or be on the wrong side of history' (sic) tells me
this is not about a more clear and understandable naming convention. This is
posturing and pandering.
I am disappointed greatly. Very disappointed.
DAve
----- On Jul 14, 2020, at 5:03 AM, Kevin A. McGrail <kmcgr...@apache.org
<mailto:kmcgr...@apache.org>> wrote:
Marc and others about voting,
The ASF is a meritocracy not a democracy. Voting privileges are earned
by demonstrating merit on a project. That is the project management
committee aka the PMC. Discussion with the PMC on this change started
in early April with a vote in early May by the PMC.
To Marc, your Ad hominem attacks are not needed and I will ignore
messages that use them.
To you and others spouting off, be reminded that this is a publicly
archived mailing list and you will be on the wrong side of history.
Consider that when you post.
Regards, KAM
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 03:51 Marc Roos <m.r...@f1-outsourcing.eu
<mailto:m.r...@f1-outsourcing.eu>> wrote:
> I never said it was being done for engineering reasons. The
change is
> being done to remove racially-charged language from Apache
> SpamAssassin. As an open source project, we are part of a
movement
> built on a foundation of inclusion that has changed how
computing is
> done. The engineering concerns are outweighed by the social
benefits
> and your huffing is not going to stop it.
>
If you are referencing opensource and community. Why is this group
not
voting on this? Why is only a small group deciding what is being
done?
Such a vote, hardly can classify as open source, community nor
democratic.
