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;
Date:   Sat, 4 Jul 2020 18:32:32 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle:
 Inclusive Terminology
Message-ID: <202007041811.45236EE598@keescook>
References: <159389297140.2210796.13590142254668787525.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <1593897917.7058.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <CAPM=9tyjdzU-O2nAWFngGSE=aSfUsaRer9x3bk8hpyhCOX0Bew@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPM=9tyjdzU-O2nAWFngGSE=aSfUsaRer9x3bk8hpyhCOX0Bew@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 09:39:29AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> 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?

Right; this part of the patch provides a temporal explanation for "but
why now?" and acts as an internal reference, instead of pointing to
external[1] sources, which lack the Linux-specific contextualization.

Additionally, I think it provides rebuttals to many of the specious
arguments against inclusive terminology (and it could perhaps gain
more, as we've already seen in this thread, against slippery slope
arguments). It also attempts to acknowledge what this change in the
kernel processes provides to the world in general: it's a fairly local
change to make our development community less disruptive to those that
would seek to join it -- it does not, and cannot, solve global racism
(though that would be nice).

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-01.html

-- 
Kees Cook