Package: guix-patches;
Reported by: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:07:02 UTC
Severity: normal
View this message in rfc822 format
From: Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech> To: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>, Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>, Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> Cc: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, 76407 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> Subject: [bug#76407] [GCD] Rename the default branch Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 22:26:08 +0100
Hi,
On 2025-03-26 22:00, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, dem 26.03.2025 um 18:06 +0100 schrieb Ekaitz Zarraga:
>> 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).
> Can we move past arguments that deny the existence of people? I think
> that discussion was already had five years ago and we do not need to
> rehash it.
I'm going just to ignore this.
>> 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.
> So, in your opinion, is using a branch name other than master something
> that precludes people from Iran, Russia, the DPRK or China from
> contributing, or would this only be the case if we chose a name that is
> particularly hostile – either directly or by accident – to those
> people. Continuing, if we had a sizable community of e.g. Chinese
> people telling us that using this or that sinophobic term as branch
> name is a bad idea, should we not honour those as well?
No.
I said we should be very aware of what kind of worldview we impose in
our project.
And the main point that I've been trying to make is that a Chinese
person is way less likely to propose such a change because of their culture.
> Now, I am personally not aware that any of the current suggestions are
> sinophobic or discriminatory w.r.t. any other ethnicity, religion,
> etc., but I am willing to be corrected on that.
>
>> 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".
> So, the US flag is composed of *checks notes* a desire to avoid racist
> and sexist rhetoric? Well, that colours me surprised.
>
>> 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.
> Can I get 1 USD the next time you insinuate that this proposal exists
> solely to placate the interests of people in the US? I also accept
> euros if need be.
I'm not insinuating it. I'm saying it. USA and those places that adopted
their culture.
> Now there might be a nugget of truth within this paragraph in that
> there is a risk to inadvertently choose a branch name that alienates a
> particular group of people. If you feel that this is not sufficiently
> discussed as a drawback to the proposal, then perhaps I concede that
> such wording ought to be added.
That's not what I'm saying.
I don't care about the new name we choose. Is the act of changing names
that might be uncomfortable to many.
It is to me. I don't think words are this important.
And please don't answer me I don't understand because I am privileged.
> Other than that, I do think it is understood based on our CoC that we
> should not choose such a name in the first place and such names should
> not be up for debate. In fact, the section on the choice of a name
> opens up with the goal to find a name that "Guix contributors, as a
> whole, feel comfortable with".
>
> Perhaps it was a bit naïve of me to assume a name exists that all of us
> can actually get behind. It appears as though some people will feel
> uncomfortable with anything but master for the mere reason that people
> dared questioning "master". I can't help but feel like all this talk
> about US imperialism this, US imperialism that is to waste time and
> effort that could otherwise be spent towards effecting positive change.
> I know I am not reviewing any patches as I type out this reply.
>
Our argument is a waste of time?
It's you who wanted to discuss this (nah, you didn't, you just wanted to
apply it), it's several people telling you this is related with US
American world view (I count 3 already). Real people.
>> 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.
> This is not at all how I read your proposal towards putting flags on
> websites. In fact, it didn't even look like a proposal.
That's the point. Your GCD, as it is worded, is not a proposal.
I proposed that as a thought exercise.
>> 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.
> Should we also predict that those who grew up watching missiles falling
> in their city are at some point actually hit by said missiles? I mean,
> there is a possible negative outcome wherein we discuss trivial matters
> such as branch naming while the powers that be invest in arms to start
> a third world war. Should we not be in the streets in this very
> instant to stop our local governments from spending money on war
> machines that would be much more direly needed in the education and
> healthcare sectors?
It's really hard to discuss with you, Liliana.
That has nothing to do with what I said.
You are trying to make a change that has a huge political and religious
background, if you don't understand that it might have social drawbacks
maybe you are not the right person to propose this kind of change.
You have been taking all my arguments literally and distorting them to
the extreme. I'm trying to give you some context. I'm not great at it.
But you are not helping at all.
>> 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!)
> I do have a small drawbacks section containing loaded words such as
> "evolve", "future", "satisfaction", and "opinion". Oh, and "obvious".
Come on.
>> 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.
> Simon already pointed out (in reply to Andreas) how Codeberg et al.
> advise "main" as the default branch for new projects and how projects
> currently appear to be using "main" a lot as a result.
>
> If anything about the framing of the GCD is wrong, it's that we are not
> the vanguard – we are in fact lagging behind.
>
> Cheers
In the vanguard of what?
It's a very spanish thing to tell your kids "If the other kids jump of a
cliff, do you jump too?"
Again, you are doing the same thing you have been doing since the
beginning, trying to counter what I say point by point, taking literally
a couple of words of the picture I'm trying to paint.
It is clear to me that we are not compatible at all, as it was already
from previous interaction.
Consider me done.
This is just nonsense. This is not a conversation.
Bye.
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.