Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology

[Dan Williams]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 12:16 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 01:02:51PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>
> > +'blacklist'. Recommended replacements for 'slave' are: 'secondary',
> > +'subordinate', 'replica', 'responder', 'follower', 'proxy', or
>
> I'd second the suggestion of device as an option here.

Sure, will do. I'm assuming you're thinking of cases where 'slave' is
used in isolation without a paired relative term? If not, please
clarify.

>
> > +Of course it is around this point someone jumps in with an etymological
> > +argument about why people should not be offended. Etymological arguments
> > +do not scale. The scope and pace of Linux to reach new developers
> > +exceeds the ability of historical terminology defenders to describe "no,
>
> More generally etymological arguments are just not super relevant here
> anyway, the issues people have are around current perceptions rather
> than where things came from.
>
> > +not that connotation". The revelation of 2020 was that black voices were
> > +heard on a global scale and the Linux kernel project has done its small
> > +part to answer that call as it wants black voices, among all voices, in
> > +its developer community.
>
> This, especially the bit about "revelation of 2020", sounds a little
> off to me - I think it's that it's worryingly close to the frequently
> derided pattern where people recognise a problem that other people have
> been talking about for a while and treat it as something new.  Perhaps a
> more neutrally worded reference to current events and/or our desire to
> improve instead?

I'd just as soon let this commentary live in the archives if people
need some more background. It's not like we have companion essays on
the other recommendations in coding-style, and we seem to be
converging on just amending coding-style.