Package: guix-patches;
Reported by: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:07:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Message #179 received at 76407 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
From: Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech> To: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>, Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> Cc: 76407 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>, Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>, Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>, Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> Subject: Re: [bug#76407] [GCD] Rename the default branch Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 18:06:37 +0100
First of all Andreas, thanks for your thoughtful message.
It seems like you pretty much agree with what I shared, including the
association you make with the name master ("maestro" for me, which could
be a teacher, or a person that excels in something, but also the first
original-essential work you use for others (production molds, pillars in
buildings and so on).
In any case, it's not our association what we are considering but the
association a possible minority (which I argue that it may not exist)
may have (which I argue it may be fabricated by the fact some people
decided the word "master" was offensive).
Btw, the other day I was informed that the University of Southern
California's School of Social Work removed the "field" work from their
curriculum because it may have racist connotations related to slavery. I
think the "master" case is the same. The only difference is "master"
looks more like a natural change because we have too many voices telling
us it is.
On 2025-03-26 13:21, Andreas Enge wrote:
> The negative connotations of the word "master" seem to come only from a
> US American viewpoint from the word pair "master"/"slave"; so from my
> point of view, we are importing a US American culture war, by which I do
> not feel concerned, into our international project.
> Ekaitz writes: "the USA imperialism is forced upon me."
> Even before reading his words, I essentially felt the same. Maybe we
> could call it "US American cultural dominance" to be a bit more neutral.
> We are already expected to communicate in English (while I may regret
> that Latin has gone out of fashion, I must admit that English is just
> the most practical solution right now). We are expected to use
> US American spelling. Now we consider pandering to US American
> sensitivities with respect to their history on how we name our branches.
> (As far as I understand, the author of the proposal is not from the USA,
> but this does not invalidate the argument about cultural dominance.)
> All this is somewhat ironic: We start by using a language that is foreign
> to many or probably even most of us, and end up being expected to share
> also the cultural connotations linked to that language (in a particular
> part of the world) that would not pose a problem if we had used a
> different language from the start.
But this is something I wanted to highlight, that I think we are kind of
avoiding discussing. It's not that it is forced upon us only, it's that
we should, in my opinion, prevent that from happening because Guix is of
all people, including those that are "cultural enemies" of the USA
(because of their own reasons or because the cultural context where they
had the chance to be raised in). And they are already doing a huge
effort to be here, an effort US Americans don't need to do.
I'd rather make software for the majority of the world, than only for
those that feel comfortable with the US American eccentricities.
This includes *people* in Iran, Russia, North Korea, China (just for
mentioning some) and the rest of the globe. The world is too large, and
it's crowded.
If we want to make *people* (not just *some* people) feel comfortable,
we should take a look to the broad picture and stop looking at our own
belly button (spanish idiom :) ).
The name of the branch is the color of the bikeshed, I agree with you
all. I'd prefer if the discussion wasn't put in the terms of "which of
the colors of the US American flag do we want to use to paint it".
Because if there's no possibility to discuss the very core of this
proposition, that's how it sounds to me, and I'm not particularly a
hater of the USA. I cannot even imagine how could this all sound to others.
Being clear, changing the branch name to please US American sensibility
may be counterproductive, those that might feel underrepresented in Guix
(and probably in (free-) software development) might see how we lean
towards a worldview that is too far from theirs. No surprise that some
countries use their own software ecosystem. I don't like to work only
for less than a quarter of the planet. I think people from any place in
the world deserves this work, and those who we are trying to please are
the ones that need it the less.
This I wanted to point out when I proposed putting the Palestinian flag
in the Guix website. I'm sure that I didn't make people think as much as
I expected to, because this conversation was more confrontational than
anything. But please think about it again. We cannot pretend that a
discussion like that one would be only positive for the project, like I
think this GCD does. There is a possible negative outcome, for example,
that those who think that is unfair (maybe because they grew up watching
missiles falling in their city) leave the project. We can agree or
disagree, but that is a possibility and we should be empathetic enough
to understand it and predict it the same way we try to predict the
negative outcomes of our technical decisions.
I think my previous messages were understood as I was opposing the
change just because I'm a free-speech absolutist (heh) or an
anti-"woke". It's not the change what I oppose, I reject its terms, and
the premises it is proposed on top of, which I think are simply
counterproductive in a way that is not even contemplated in the document.
And if you wish, strictly speaking on the document. It describes
potential social benefits using heavy loaded words ("harmful", "racist",
"sexist") but it doesn't list any social drawback. That's more than
enough to understand how biased the proposal is (it's just so obvious!)
and how difficult that is to argue against. The belligerence this has
been defended with doesn't help much to try to understand the answers it
got.
I could say mea culpa a for my part, maybe my wording wasn't the best,
but I don't think my previous arguments were really listened to, simply
because the rename *is the right thing to do*.
I don't know if Simon's question "are we really looking for consensus
here?" was pointed to me, but I've been trying to. Maybe poorly,
addressing the core issues of the proposal, and saying, probably we
shouldn't have even started it.
I hope this speaks more clearly about what I said before.
Best,
Ekaitz
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.