On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:06 PM Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm OK with changing the term if it add clarity, but I'm against changing it just
because it contains the name "black".
It's a color. There are black pens, marks, crayons, etc (as far as reference to the
Blacklisting something (or someone) has a long history of use (at least in English) which
has nothing to do with race.
Yes, it's a color, but the list isn't black, so that's not relevant. I
agree that it has a long non-racial usage, but it also has less
clarity. Unlike the term "slave", I would not object to *any* use of
the word blacklist, but it should be used judiciously. If upstream
uses it, then by all means let's use it in command line invocations,
file names, etc. But let's not use it in the descriptive part of the
article. (analogy: ssh is the command, SSH is the protocol;
foo.blacklist is the file, foo blocklist is the concept)
I don't see changing this particular article as a problem, but
rather as a stepping stone to a run-away issue for which there is no solution and I'm
not in favor of "cleansing" language to appease people who can't help
themselves from being offended even when there's no reason to be.
We should be very careful about deciding whether or not we're causing
offense to a group that is almost entirely unrepresented in our
community. No one has suggested a language police, just establishing a
set of standards that address specific issues. Will those standards
change over time? Absolutely. The English I write isn't the same as
William Shakespeare (in a variety of ways). Submitting an article that
uses "blacklist" isn't a code of conduct issue; it's something to look
at in the editorial review process.
Yes, this particular terminology is getting more attention right now
due to issues in the United States. That doesn't mean it's not worth
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream