lists.openwall.net | 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2020 14:25:17 -0700 From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org Cc: ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tech-board-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org, 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. James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists