[edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] Inclusive Language RFC

[Marvin Häuser]

Hey,

On 25.10.21 20:47, Teng, Lynn L wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Please provide your feedback and comments to the Inclusive Language Plan below over the next two weeks (10/25-11/05).  Thank you in advance for your contributions.
>
>
> ***
>
> ## Overview
>
> To promote a more inclusive and open ecosystem, TianoCore is dedicated to removing archaic terminology that holds negative connotation.
> In collaboration with UEFI, we will be following the same [Inclusive Language Implementation Guidelines](https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI_Inclusive%20Language.pdf) as stated on [UEFI.org](https://uefi.org/).
>
>
> ## Plan
>    
> 1. Announcement of intent, and all check-ins from here onwards will need to abide by Inclusive Language Implementation Guidelines
> 2. Scrubbing of all comments, documentation, and Wiki pages
> 3. Scrubbing all non-legacy code
> 3.1. Integrate open-source commit hook that will warn submitter of violations
> 4. Working with UEFI to scrub legacy code
> 4.1. Update commit hook to block submissions with violations
>    
>    
> ## Implementation Guidelines
>    
> ### Master/Slave to not be used together nor alone.
> Alternatives:
> Master | Slave
> -------|-------
> Main | Secondary, Subordinate
> Primary | Secondary, Replica
> Host | Target
> Leader | Follower
> Orchestrator | Worker
> Initiator | Responder

Some of these combinations sound very awkward because they are not 
strictly or strongly related language-wise. Examples:
- In my opinion, a replica can very well be a main, it just cannot be an 
original.
- "Responder" is very generic - "slave" conveys work, not just any sort 
of reaction
- "Primary" and "secondary" are clearly related, "main" and "secondary" 
are not.
...

The combination "leader"/"follower" could be interpreted politically if 
you just try hard enough, who knows what language revision proposals may 
look like in 10 years from now. Maybe drop it entirely. :)

> Or similar descriptive terminology
>    
> ### Blacklist/Whitelist to not be used together nor alone.
> Alternatives:
> Blacklist | Whitelist
> ----------|----------
> Blocklist | Passlist
> Denylist | Allowlist
> Refused, Denied | Permitted

I think this should be made stricter to "refused"/"permitted" and 
"granted"/"denied" to stay consistent with common usage.

My biggest issues with such proposals is they tell me which words to not 
use, but not which to use instead. Yes, there are plenty of alternatives 
given, but when do I use which? E.g. "host" / "target" already is a very 
common combination for debugging, but nobody would think of naming their 
main git branch "host". If you deprecate widely conventional 
terminology, in my opinion you should also provide clear and detailed 
guidelines for which sub-areas they are deprecated by which exact 
alternatives (e.g. "version control - main; debugging - host"). I don't 
think a terminology zoo where everybody picks their preference by gut 
feeling is in anyone's best interest.

Thanks!

Best regards,
Marvin

>
> Or similar descriptive terminology
>
>
> 
>
>



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#82734): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/82734
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/86622654/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-