lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 04 Jul 2020 14:25:17 -0700
From:   James Bottomley <>
To:     Dan Williams <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,,,
        Chris Mason <clm@...clm>
Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology

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.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists