| 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 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