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

[De Zeurkous <zeurkous@thinkcrap.localdomain>]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 04:08:21 +0000, Ellenor Bjornsdottir <ellenor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There seems to be three contingents engaging publicly here:
>  =C2=A0* 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
>  =C2=A0* people speaking in support of zsh coming into adherence to the
> policy
>   * people speaking in opposition to zsh coming into adherence to the
> policy

That appears to be an accurate summary, except that you forgot one
contigent--
   * people speaking out that they don't care whether or not zsh comes
     into adherence with 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),

Some would say that being a girl in "tech" (that word is so overused by
the mainstream that it has become near-meaningless -- hell, they've been
referring to utterly bureaucratic matters as "technical"!) puts one in a
marginalized position. (Me's not sure me agrees with that one, however
-- don't shoot the messenger.)

> 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.

Me's not sure what that's supposed to mean.

> 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.

If that's so: it doesn't work on me. Nor does it seem to work on most
main contributors.

> 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.

Technological affairs are by definition harsh, as technology can't be
fooled. That by itself requires people, black or purple, cat or human,
to be rather thick-skinned (or is the latter now a racial appellation,
too? :x).

> 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.

Lol. Defending the most basic of technical standards is now "petty"? 8)7

(Your off-list message was base64-encoded, btw. Medid, of course, not
bother to decode yet another layer.)

> 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.

Yes. But projects like these run (more or less) on consensus. If people
are shamed into not expressing their honest views, false consensuses
will form.  That would be a significant loss to the project.

> 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).

Look, instead of wasting time on all that, have you considered that the
design of the pty system itself might be flawed? That it may well be
more appropriate to have general loopback devices, that can be put to
many more uses. In that case, the term "master" would naturally be
replaced with something like "server", and "slave" with something like
"client" (read up on microkernels if you're not familiar with the
concept).

While that would be far beyond the purview of the zsh project alone, it
would at least give a good opportunity to change the terms. And hell,
it's been decades since ptys were zeroth implemented. It's about time
for a revision (or, as me's proposing: the development of a more
general mechanism that would eclipse both ptys and the "problematic"
terms).

Why not focus on that, instead of trying to nail Jell-O(tm) to a tree
here....?

> 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.

"human trafficking terminology"?

You aren't serious, are you?

Ever heard of wage slavery?

> The
> interface in question is private,

Yet, it has to align with the public one to be meaningful.

> 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.

Yes. It makes it quite clear that it's all a bunch of windbaggery[0],
perpetuated by those seeking attention for its own sake, and we have
better ways to spend our time.

Baai,

         --zeurkous. 

[0] Too bad me's the bigger windbag, eh?

>
> --=20
> Ellenor Agnes Bjornsdottir (she)
> sysadmin umbrellix.net
> jabber: ellenor ~on~ umbrellix.net
>
>

-- 
Friggin' Machines!