I have no objection other than maybe the work it puts on the writer to
learn the new terminology. Personally I don't typically think along those
lines and I can see where it might be easy for someone to accidentally use
a word out of habit and not even realize that it is one that has been
flagged by the community as an offensive word.
My only request is that the writers/editors not be expected to learn a long
list of words to constantly be thinking about and watching out for. I would
rather the list be loaded into the spelling autocorrect system somehow.
My two cents,
gb
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:55 PM Paul Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 5:23 PM Eric Gustavsson
<egustavs(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Raising my opinion as well. As a Swedish person, I've always
> associated whitelists as a list of things you can see, since white is
> bright.
> Likewise for blacklists as something in the darkness that you cannot see.
>
I'm sure you can understand, though, why our associations in this case are
less relevant.
I personally would use the same connotation as the project I'm writing
> about.
> If I'm writing about Redis I will write about master-replica.
> Likewise if I'm writing about something that uses whitelist/blacklist
> wording, I will use that as well.
>
> Using a different connotation than is documented is just confusing.
>
While I agree upstream references may make this difficult there are still
actions we can take, such as a note to the effect of the objectionable
language, and (if it exists) a link to upstream discussion. We can also
work around with a clear note at the top of an article explaining the
language we will use.
I wouldn't edit the Fedora Magazine article either, even though
> allowlist/denylist 100% makes more sense in firewalld the article
> talks about it as a problem and proposes a solution - their
> firewalld-blacklist package.
> If it was to be edited across the article to mention denylist instead,
> and in the end link to a firewalld-blacklist package they created, one
> would be confused as to why it was coded with one word and released
> with a different one.
>
This seems a weak problem. After all we have many -devel packages that
contain mainly headers.
I would vote for discouraging master/slave, and blacklist/whitelist as
> long as it makes sense and doesn't take away any meaning that needs to
> be explained.
>
> Having a style guide sounds great, I'm presuming something like
> codespell can correct custom words as well like RedHat,
> NetworkManager, fedora, etc.
>
I do agree we avoid creating confusion, but this can be done in many ways
that avoid simply falling back to status quo.
--
Paul
_______________________________________________
Fedora Magazine mailing list -- magazine(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to magazine-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/magazine@lists.fedoraprojec...