Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159389297140.2210796.13590142254668787525.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <1593897917.7058.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
In-Reply-To: <1593897917.7058.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
From:   Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 5 Jul 2020 09:39:29 +1000
Message-ID: <CAPM=9tyjdzU-O2nAWFngGSE=aSfUsaRer9x3bk8hpyhCOX0Bew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle:
 Inclusive Terminology
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Chris Mason <clm@fb.clm>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        tech-board-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ksummit <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 at 07:25, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2020-07-04 at 13:02 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/inclusive-terminology.rst
> > b/Documentation/process/inclusive-terminology.rst
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..a8eb26690eb4
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/process/inclusive-terminology.rst
>
> Could we just lose this entire document?  The one thing we should learn
> from recent history is that we really want prevent people distracting
> from the good inclusive (and technically more accurate) terminology
> will do.  One way the detractors do this by engaging in ultimately
> pointless arguments about historical accuracy of supporting statements.
>   By making pejorative statements about history (which are open to
> challenge on several fronts), this document acts as a magnet for such
> attention.  Simply leave it out and the detractors will have nothing to
> attack except the bald statement of desiring more inclusive language.
> I'd much rather defend why we want inclusive and more descriptive
> language than get into a pointless argument over whether the Ottoman
> slave trade was more or less evil than the American one.

I don't totally agree on that, because like the CoC discussion, people
need concrete examples. People need reasons, saying simply "be
inclusive" doesn't work.

You say "be inclusive" people don't think about it, they just go "I'm
inclusive" and proceed, never questioning what it means to be
inclusive, they normalise inclusivity to their self image and within
their lives where they might never confront anything like this.

I don't doubt we get the American/Ottoman/Barbery coast people and the
correct answer to those people is to tell them to examine why they
suddenly care about Barbery slavery now when they have never even
heard or worried about it before. Why haven't they submitted patches
removing slavery terminology from the kernel before?

Dave.