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:   Sun, 5 Jul 2020 17:50:31 +0000
From:   opal hart <opal@wowana.me>
To:     Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.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>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle:
 Inclusive Terminology
Message-ID: <20200705175031.4d7fa711@mahin.wowana.me>
In-Reply-To: <CAPM=9tyjdzU-O2nAWFngGSE=aSfUsaRer9x3bk8hpyhCOX0Bew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <159389297140.2210796.13590142254668787525.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
        <1593897917.7058.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
        <CAPM=9tyjdzU-O2nAWFngGSE=aSfUsaRer9x3bk8hpyhCOX0Bew@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Volatile
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 09:39:29 +1000
Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> 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.

Which people? because so far the only people I've seen take these
terminologies out of computing context, are those who are only voicing
their "concern" out of bad faith, as well as those who fall for the
concern-trolling bait. The meta-discussion serves to stir up noise and
waste time that's better spent on other things.

History pains, sure, but I believe it serves no justice to erase every
trace of bad things that happened in history. That includes use of
words tangentially related to such events.

-- 
wowaname <https://wowana.me/pgp.xht>