On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)

[Ellenor Bjornsdottir <ellenor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There seems to be three contingents engaging publicly here:
 * what I'll call the IBM parties, who are here on business related
to the Words Matter policy, holding that "master/slave" terminology
is to be avoided when synonymous terminology is available
 * people speaking in support of zsh coming into adherence to the
policy
 * people speaking in opposition to zsh coming into adherence to the
policy

People speaking in support invoke the fact that the words cause pain
for some marginalized people working in tech. I am not the kind of
marginalized person for whom this would matter (I'm not racialized
nor am I a survivor of human trafficking), so I cannot speak to this,
but I will say that this charges the perception of some people who are
as unmarginalized as myself related to this topic.

They also invoke the feeling of shame the opposition feels on public
participation in the debate, as an indication that this is an idea
whose time has come. I don't like this, but I don't think it factors.

One of the two parties I've seen to openly oppose the motion have
invoked the fact that, _a priori_, there's nothing bad about these
words, which is on its face true - if you do not consider the harm
that they can do to a certain marginalized community that I see
underrepresented in tech, possibly due to this reason. The other party
has sent messages to this list that vary between ... not warranting a
response, and where they do warrant a response, being extremely
petty about mail formatting (quoted-printable) to multiple people.
Said second party also invokes the feeling of shame the opposition
feels on the matter as "a propagandistic minority having the ability
to dictate to the majority." Again, I don't think the shame of a
silent majority or minority factors. I think one can do a harms and
benefits analysis using solely practical facts.

The only inconsistency and confusion I can see occurring is if the
words are used in a public interface, and in the first few weeks to
months as people get up to speed on the new, otherwise synonymous
terminology in private interfaces. For public interfaces, a
transitional approach may be appropriate where the deprecated
terminology is used for aliases to the new terminology, and is slated
to be removed at the developer's convenience (which may be never).

To recapitulate somewhat, it appears from previous factual discussion
on the matter that the cost of making this change would be a few
cycles expended in `sed`, temporary perverse merriment as developers
adjust, and nothing else - and the benefit would be that people
triggered by human trafficking terminology would be able to
participate more effectively in zsh development moving forward. The
interface in question is private, so there's no need to worry about
transitioning public interfaces. Plugins that use this code may need
to be updated with version-based ifdefs - but do any plugins use this
code? I am not a developer, so I don't want to weigh in on a matter
that does not affect me, but I hope my analysis is useful for those
who are developers to make a reasoned decision.

--
Ellenor Agnes Bjornsdottir (she)
sysadmin umbrellix.net
jabber: ellenor ~on~ umbrellix.net