Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
40 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

Chris Lamb -2
Dear -vote,

> […]

May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to
it being subject to a plebiscite?

To be clear, I am neither quibbling with the dictionary definition nor
the applicability of this word in a technical sense to any of the
competing proposals. However, at least in the cultures I am exposed to
this term is now freighted with an additional layer of quasi-political
meaning and context that highly distorts the colour of all proposals
and adds unnecessary partisan language to a topic that is laden with
enough emotional baggage to begin with.

Putting it another way, whichever proposal receives the eventual
blessing of the Project it would be a disservice to the winning
argument if it were possible for its opponents to claim that related-
yet-distinct political causes were needlessly imported to bolster its
case. I therefore ask all proposers to consider replacing the use of
this word and thereby close the door on any remotely plausible retort
along the lines that "diversity washing" (or indeed any other
inexpensive tactics) were involved in an underhanded process of
persuading others.


Regards,

--
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      [hidden email] 🍥 chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

Enrico Zini
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 11:27:13AM +0000, Chris Lamb wrote:

> May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
> throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to
> it being subject to a plebiscite?

Thanks for raising this issue, and yes, please!

Something like s/init diversity/support for multiple init systems/
seems to me to address the issue you raise, introduce more clarity, and
it sounds to me also somewhat more precise. For example:

  Choice 1: Support for multiple init systems is Important
  Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
  Choice 3: Focus on systemd for init system and other facilities
  Choice 4: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
  Choice 5: Support for multiple init systems is Required


Enrico

--
GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <[hidden email]>

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

+1 (Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity")

Holger Levsen-2
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:54:40PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> > May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
> > throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to
> > it being subject to a plebiscite?
> Thanks for raising this issue, and yes, please!
>
> Something like s/init diversity/support for multiple init systems/
> seems to me to address the issue you raise, introduce more clarity, and
> it sounds to me also somewhat more precise. For example:

this. (thanks & yes!)


--
cheers,
        Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

Sam Hartman-3
In reply to this post by Enrico Zini
>>>>> "Enrico" == Enrico Zini <[hidden email]> writes:

    Enrico> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 11:27:13AM +0000, Chris Lamb wrote:
    >> May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
    >> throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution
    >> prior to it being subject to a plebiscite?

    Enrico> Thanks for raising this issue, and yes, please!

    Enrico> Something like s/init diversity/support for multiple init
    Enrico> systems/ seems to me to address the issue you raise,
    Enrico> introduce more clarity, and it sounds to me also somewhat
    Enrico> more precise. For example:


I hear what you are saying.  But the people who favor choice in init
systems really do seem to identify with the term "init diversity."  I
think it is important to let people choose their own labels, and choose
how they would be known.  In my mind letting people self identify is
more important than the quasi-political aspects of the term diversity.

I supported Holger's push to remove diversity from the title of proposal
C because the systemd community does not seem to value or identify with
the diversity label.

But diversity is in the name of the mailing list where support for
non-systemd init systems is discussed.
It's been a term that community has been using for years.
Now is not the time to change that unless that community supports the
change.


--Sam

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

Marco d'Itri
In reply to this post by Chris Lamb -2
[hidden email] wrote:

>May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
>throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to
>it being subject to a plebiscite?
I fully agree.

Also, it is not acceptable for a small minority to frame the whole
debate in the terms that they favour.

--
ciao,
Marco

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

Simon McVittie-7
In reply to this post by Chris Lamb -2
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 11:27:13 +0000, Chris Lamb wrote:
> May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
> throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to
> it being subject to a plebiscite?

Thank you for raising this, Chris.

I agree. I have been uncomfortable with this in the context of "init
diversity" efforts, but I didn't raise it in the past because I couldn't
articulate clearly why I felt that it was a problem.  Since it's now
on-topic, here's my best attempt at that:

The diversity team, and wider efforts around diversity in Debian and
in software in general, have used "diversity" as a catch-all term for
personal characteristics of our contributors and community members when
discussing inclusion and how we treat people, as a way to avoid having
to enumerate specific characteristics (which would tend to lead to focus
on those characteristics at the expense of others).

If we use the same word in discussions around technical decisions, this
raises some concerns for me. Jokes about the emacs and vi religions
aside, technical preferences are not really the same thing as the
characteristics we normally refer to by "diversity". Of course, we
should treat the people who hold those preferences with respect, but
that isn't the same as considering implementation of their preference
to be an ethical imperative for Debian.

To take a deliberately slightly absurd example, preferring Gentoo over
Debian is not an inclusion or diversity issue; we welcome constructive
contributions to Debian from people who would prefer to be using Gentoo
(notably some of our upstreams!), but we do not consider it to be an
ethical imperative to expand the scope of Debian to encompass everything
Gentoo does.

I would hate to see diversity and inclusion of people (the meaning of
the word used in the name of the Diversity Team) harmed by creating a
perception that the term "diversity" has been devalued by stretching
it to encompass technical preferences, because I think diversity and
inclusion of people is much too important to let that happen.

Conflating diversity of people with diversity of implementation could
easily also harm our technical decisions, in either direction:

* it could influence technical decisions away from making a choice as
  a project, and towards creating infrastructure to make that choice on
  individual systems, by developers who do not wish to be perceived to
  be opposing "diversity" in the interpersonal/Diversity Team sense of
  the word;

* conversely, it could influence technical decisions *towards* making a
  choice as a project, and *away from* making that choice on individual
  systems, by developers who might believe this use of "diversity" is
  disingenuous (even if it was not intended as such).

The extent to which we make choices project-wide, and the amount of
technical cost we are willing to accept to be able to make those choices
onto individual systems, seem like something that we should decide based
on their merits. Whatever the result of the imminent vote might be,
I would like it to be chosen for the right reasons.

    smcv

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

Scott Kitterman-5


On November 27, 2019 2:54:04 PM UTC, Simon McVittie <[hidden email]> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 11:27:13 +0000, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
>> throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to
>> it being subject to a plebiscite?
>
>Thank you for raising this, Chris.
>
>I agree. I have been uncomfortable with this in the context of "init
>diversity" efforts, but I didn't raise it in the past because I
>couldn't
>articulate clearly why I felt that it was a problem.  Since it's now
>on-topic, here's my best attempt at that:
>
>The diversity team, and wider efforts around diversity in Debian and
>in software in general, have used "diversity" as a catch-all term for
>personal characteristics of our contributors and community members when
>discussing inclusion and how we treat people, as a way to avoid having
>to enumerate specific characteristics (which would tend to lead to
>focus
>on those characteristics at the expense of others).
>
>If we use the same word in discussions around technical decisions, this
>raises some concerns for me. Jokes about the emacs and vi religions
>aside, technical preferences are not really the same thing as the
>characteristics we normally refer to by "diversity". Of course, we
>should treat the people who hold those preferences with respect, but
>that isn't the same as considering implementation of their preference
>to be an ethical imperative for Debian.
>
>To take a deliberately slightly absurd example, preferring Gentoo over
>Debian is not an inclusion or diversity issue; we welcome constructive
>contributions to Debian from people who would prefer to be using Gentoo
>(notably some of our upstreams!), but we do not consider it to be an
>ethical imperative to expand the scope of Debian to encompass
>everything
>Gentoo does.
>
>I would hate to see diversity and inclusion of people (the meaning of
>the word used in the name of the Diversity Team) harmed by creating a
>perception that the term "diversity" has been devalued by stretching
>it to encompass technical preferences, because I think diversity and
>inclusion of people is much too important to let that happen.
>
>Conflating diversity of people with diversity of implementation could
>easily also harm our technical decisions, in either direction:
>
>* it could influence technical decisions away from making a choice as
>  a project, and towards creating infrastructure to make that choice on
>  individual systems, by developers who do not wish to be perceived to
>  be opposing "diversity" in the interpersonal/Diversity Team sense of
>  the word;
>
>* conversely, it could influence technical decisions *towards* making a
>  choice as a project, and *away from* making that choice on individual
>  systems, by developers who might believe this use of "diversity" is
>  disingenuous (even if it was not intended as such).
>
>The extent to which we make choices project-wide, and the amount of
>technical cost we are willing to accept to be able to make those
>choices
>onto individual systems, seem like something that we should decide
>based
>on their merits. Whatever the result of the imminent vote might be,
>I would like it to be chosen for the right reasons.

I am deeply saddened by this message.  I think it is entirely misguided, but I fail to come up with a way to explain it that is no one will think violates our code of conduct.  It's things like this that are causing me to start to view it as a mistake.

Scott K

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity" [and 1 more messages]

Ian Jackson-2
In reply to this post by Chris Lamb -2
Chris Lamb writes ("Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity""):
> May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
> throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to
> it being subject to a plebiscite?

Enrico writes:
> Something like s/init diversity/support for multiple init systems/

I support this proposal.

Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity""):
> I hear what you are saying.  But the people who favor choice in init
> systems really do seem to identify with the term "init diversity."

That would be me.  I am not sure whether I am the *chief* proponent of
this term in this context, but I was part of the group that named the
team and the mailing list on chiark, etc.  So I feel I have a very
strong standing to comment here.

Whether my decision to use "diversity" for this at that time, and in
that context, was aposite or problematic, or wise or foolish, is open
to debate.  I would be happy to have that conversation another time in
another context.

In the context of this GR, however, I think it is important that we
try to avoid unnecessarily introducing additional issues, which
confound this already highly contested situation.  This is why my
proposal avoids the "diversity" term entirely.

>  I think it is important to let people choose their own labels, and
> choose how they would be known.  In my mind letting people self
> identify is more important than the quasi-political aspects of the
> term diversity.

The problem here is precisely the baggage.  I know that people who
favour what I have been calling "init systems diversity" have
divergent views on what might be called "[human] diversity [more
generally]".

In the context of GR proposals, and, especially, titles, it is not
possible to unpack and contextualise this terminology.  It needs to
be clear and baggage-free.

> But diversity is in the name of the mailing list where support for
> non-systemd init systems is discussed.

As one of the two list administrators for that list, I support this
change.

I am not the proposer of any of the options that use the word
"diversity".  I have addressed this message to (amongst others)
Dmitry, who is the proponent of the relevant Member-proposed option.

I do not feel I can predict with confidence what Dmitry's view on this
is, but my guess is that Dmitry would not object to replacing "init
system diversity" with "support for multiple init systems".

I hope that we can take the time to wait for Dmitry's mail lag.

If we are forced to guess, my personal guess would be that Dmitry
would favour this change.  Others who know and have dealt with him may
have other views.  It would be best to wait for his own opinion.

I don't know if this change needs Dmitry's formal approval.  I think
probably not, because the signed part of his email proposals includes
only the two clauses of body text and not the title, which was simply
in the Subject line of his email.  And I think that title came in
fact from Sam's option 1, for which Dmitry's text was a proposed
replacement.

Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <[hidden email]>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

Matthias Klumpp-2
In reply to this post by Simon McVittie-7
Am Mi., 27. Nov. 2019 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Simon McVittie <[hidden email]>:
>
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 11:27:13 +0000, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
> > throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to
> > it being subject to a plebiscite?
>
> Thank you for raising this, Chris.

Yes, thank you so much! This has bothered me for a really long time
and I just never raised it because I thought it would create another
long thread discussing the term itself, derailing the actually
important discussion on the subject matter. However, especially in the
context of a vote, the choice of words and framing drastically changes
how things are perceived. Especially with a term that has a defined
meaning already, or at the very least is loaded with other,
non-technical associations. I don't think using it is neutral, as a
technical vote proposal should be.
I may be in favour of diversity in general, but may still prefer the
technical decision to focus only on one init system. Yet, for some
reason, I would have to vote against "diversity".

> I agree. I have been uncomfortable with this in the context of "init
> diversity" efforts, but I didn't raise it in the past because I couldn't
> articulate clearly why I felt that it was a problem.  Since it's now
> on-topic, here's my best attempt at that:
>
> The diversity team, and wider efforts around diversity in Debian and
> in software in general, have used "diversity" as a catch-all term for
> personal characteristics of our contributors and community members when
> discussing inclusion and how we treat people, as a way to avoid having
> to enumerate specific characteristics (which would tend to lead to focus
> on those characteristics at the expense of others).
>
> If we use the same word in discussions around technical decisions, this
> raises some concerns for me. Jokes about the emacs and vi religions
> aside, technical preferences are not really the same thing as the
> characteristics we normally refer to by "diversity". Of course, we
> should treat the people who hold those preferences with respect, but
> that isn't the same as considering implementation of their preference
> to be an ethical imperative for Debian.
>
> To take a deliberately slightly absurd example, preferring Gentoo over
> Debian is not an inclusion or diversity issue; we welcome constructive
> contributions to Debian from people who would prefer to be using Gentoo
> (notably some of our upstreams!), but we do not consider it to be an
> ethical imperative to expand the scope of Debian to encompass everything
> Gentoo does.
>
> I would hate to see diversity and inclusion of people (the meaning of
> the word used in the name of the Diversity Team) harmed by creating a
> perception that the term "diversity" has been devalued by stretching
> it to encompass technical preferences, because I think diversity and
> inclusion of people is much too important to let that happen.
>
> Conflating diversity of people with diversity of implementation could
> easily also harm our technical decisions, in either direction:
>
> * it could influence technical decisions away from making a choice as
>   a project, and towards creating infrastructure to make that choice on
>   individual systems, by developers who do not wish to be perceived to
>   be opposing "diversity" in the interpersonal/Diversity Team sense of
>   the word;
>
> * conversely, it could influence technical decisions *towards* making a
>   choice as a project, and *away from* making that choice on individual
>   systems, by developers who might believe this use of "diversity" is
>   disingenuous (even if it was not intended as such).
>
> The extent to which we make choices project-wide, and the amount of
> technical cost we are willing to accept to be able to make those choices
> onto individual systems, seem like something that we should decide based
> on their merits. Whatever the result of the imminent vote might be,
> I would like it to be chosen for the right reasons.

I do not see that using "diversity" as a term in technical discussions
would devalue the diversity efforts of the teams working on it.
However, I do think the points where you see it harm discussions are
very real. If you google "diversity" you can see it is pretty much
exclusively used in social contexts. By bringing it into technical
discussions, a neutral discussion suddenly becomes colored with
emotional opinions and people having to take sides for and against
diversity, instead of just having opinions about a certain subject
matter. And even if one disagrees with this assumption, taking that
risk is just not worth it as there are many other ways to say the same
thing: Just calling this "support for multiple init systems" is very
neutral as well as accurate, so would "Init system variety" be.

Cheers,
    Matthias

--
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

Micha Lenk-9
Hi all,

I support avoiding the term diversity in the context of this GR for the already mentioned good reasons. However, I would consider "alternative init systems" a better phrase than "multiple init systems" in this context (if that matters from a non-native speaker).

Regards,
Micha

Am 27. November 2019 18:04:49 MEZ schrieb Matthias Klumpp <[hidden email]>:
Am Mi., 27. Nov. 2019 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Simon McVittie <[hidden email]>:

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 11:27:13 +0000, Chris Lamb wrote:
May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to
it being subject to a plebiscite?

Thank you for raising this, Chris.

Yes, thank you so much! This has bothered me for a really long time
and I just never raised it because I thought it would create another
long thread discussing the term itself, derailing the actually
important discussion on the subject matter. However, especially in the
context of a vote, the choice of words and framing drastically changes
how things are perceived. Especially with a term that has a defined
meaning already, or at the very least is loaded with other,
non-technical associations. I don't think using it is neutral, as a
technical vote proposal should be.
I may be in favour of diversity in general, but may still prefer the
technical decision to focus only on one init system. Yet, for some
reason, I would have to vote against "diversity".

I agree. I have been uncomfortable with this in the context of "init
diversity" efforts, but I didn't raise it in the past because I couldn't
articulate clearly why I felt that it was a problem. Since it's now
on-topic, here's my best attempt at that:

The diversity team, and wider efforts around diversity in Debian and
in software in general, have used "diversity" as a catch-all term for
personal characteristics of our contributors and community members when
discussing inclusion and how we treat people, as a way to avoid having
to enumerate specific characteristics (which would tend to lead to focus
on those characteristics at the expense of others).

If we use the same word in discussions around technical decisions, this
raises some concerns for me. Jokes about the emacs and vi religions
aside, technical preferences are not really the same thing as the
characteristics we normally refer to by "diversity". Of course, we
should treat the people who hold those preferences with respect, but
that isn't the same as considering implementation of their preference
to be an ethical imperative for Debian.

To take a deliberately slightly absurd example, preferring Gentoo over
Debian is not an inclusion or diversity issue; we welcome constructive
contributions to Debian from people who would prefer to be using Gentoo
(notably some of our upstreams!), but we do not consider it to be an
ethical imperative to expand the scope of Debian to encompass everything
Gentoo does.

I would hate to see diversity and inclusion of people (the meaning of
the word used in the name of the Diversity Team) harmed by creating a
perception that the term "diversity" has been devalued by stretching
it to encompass technical preferences, because I think diversity and
inclusion of people is much too important to let that happen.

Conflating diversity of people with diversity of implementation could
easily also harm our technical decisions, in either direction:

* it could influence technical decisions away from making a choice as
a project, and towards creating infrastructure to make that choice on
individual systems, by developers who do not wish to be perceived to
be opposing "diversity" in the interpersonal/Diversity Team sense of
the word;

* conversely, it could influence technical decisions *towards* making a
choice as a project, and *away from* making that choice on individual
systems, by developers who might believe this use of "diversity" is
disingenuous (even if it was not intended as such).

The extent to which we make choices project-wide, and the amount of
technical cost we are willing to accept to be able to make those choices
onto individual systems, seem like something that we should decide based
on their merits. Whatever the result of the imminent vote might be,
I would like it to be chosen for the right reasons.

I do not see that using "diversity" as a term in technical discussions
would devalue the diversity efforts of the teams working on it.
However, I do think the points where you see it harm discussions are
very real. If you google "diversity" you can see it is pretty much
exclusively used in social contexts. By bringing it into technical
discussions, a neutral discussion suddenly becomes colored with
emotional opinions and people having to take sides for and against
diversity, instead of just having opinions about a certain subject
matter. And even if one disagrees with this assumption, taking that
risk is just not worth it as there are many other ways to say the same
thing: Just calling this "support for multiple init systems" is very
neutral as well as accurate, so would "Init system variety" be.

Cheers,
Matthias

--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

Kurt Roeckx
In reply to this post by Enrico Zini
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:54:40PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 11:27:13AM +0000, Chris Lamb wrote:
>
> > May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
> > throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution prior to
> > it being subject to a plebiscite?
>
> Thanks for raising this issue, and yes, please!
>
> Something like s/init diversity/support for multiple init systems/
> seems to me to address the issue you raise, introduce more clarity, and
> it sounds to me also somewhat more precise. For example:
>
>   Choice 1: Support for multiple init systems is Important
>   Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
>   Choice 3: Focus on systemd for init system and other facilities
>   Choice 4: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>   Choice 5: Support for multiple init systems is Required

I've updated choice 1 and 5 like that.

Note that the text of choice 1, 2 and 3 still mention it:
"our current position on Init systems, Init system diversity, and the use of
systemd facilities."


Kurt

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

Holger Levsen-2
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 07:15:17PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I've updated choice 1 and 5 like that.

thank you.

> Note that the text of choice 1, 2 and 3 still mention it:
> "our current position on Init systems, Init system diversity, and the use of
> systemd facilities."

how about replacing that with:

"our current position on our default Init system, alternative Init system
implementations, and the use of systemd facilities."

?!?


--
cheers,
        Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

Ian Jackson-2
In reply to this post by Simon McVittie-7
Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity""):
> I agree. I have been uncomfortable with this in the context of "init
> diversity" efforts, but I didn't raise it in the past because I couldn't
> articulate clearly why I felt that it was a problem.  Since it's now
> on-topic, here's my best attempt at that:

Thanks for your contribution which was interesting to me and made some
good points.  I don't necessarily agree completely but there is much
in what you say.

I think we should have this conversation more properly after the GR
has concluded, so I'm not going to engage with the substance of your
points now.  I just wanted to say that I appreciated your mail, and
didn't want to give the impression I was ignoring it.

In the meantime removing the word "diversity" from the GR option texts
seems like helps clarity.

Ian.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

Ian Jackson-2
In reply to this post by Micha Lenk-9
Micha Lenk writes ("Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity""):
> I support avoiding the term diversity in the context of this GR for
> the already mentioned good reasons. However, I would consider
> "alternative init systems" a better phrase than "multiple init
> systems" in this context (if that matters from a non-native
> speaker).

Thanks for your suggestion.

I think "alternative init systems" and "multiple init systems" have
the same normative meaning in this context.  (After all we are not
discussing running multiple init systems simultaneously in a single
Debian installation - even though some of our systems do support modes
which do this to various extents.)

But to me they have a difference in emphasis or connotation.
"Multiple init systems" puts the different software on a level
footing, at least in its own text; whereas "alternative init systems"
implicitly sees one as primary and the others as secondary.

Additionally, "multiple systems" implies more than two in stronger way
than "alternative systems".  This is also relevant since we have more
than two.

Cf "we support multiple text editors" vs "we support alternative text
editors".  Presumably the latter means "alternatives to ed, the
standard text editor" :-).

At least for Dmitry's option, I think "multiple" better reflects his
intent.

Ian.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

Sam Hartman-3

I'm definitely fine with Kurt's revision to the title of Proposal A
given the similar change to proposal E and Ian's comments.


If I'm permitted to make the following change under A.1(6) (that is,
permitted to make the following change without resetting the clock) I
propose to make the following small change in proposals A, B and C:

old:
The project issues the following statement describing our current
position on Init systems, Init system diversity, and the use of
systemd facilities.

new:
The project issues the following statement describing our current
position on Init systems, multiple init systems, and the use of
systemd facilities.

I considered combining init systems and multiple init systems.  I have
higher confidence that I'm not changing the meaning of the sentence
without combining the clauses though so I propose the smallest possible
change.

signature.asc (497 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity" [and 1 more messages]

Gunnar Wolf via nm
In reply to this post by Ian Jackson-2
Ian Jackson dijo [Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 04:19:25PM +0000]:
> Chris Lamb writes ("Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity""):
> Enrico writes:
> > Something like s/init diversity/support for multiple init systems/
>
> I support this proposal.

Thanks, Ian (and thanks, Enrico, and thanks, Chris... And thanks to
other backers of this idea) for pushing this. I understand Sam's point
in keeping the name that has been used for a long time in promoting
the ability to keep using different init systems according to each
user's interests, requirements and tastes, but I do feel "diversity"
is too overloadaded nowadays for it to pass noncontroversially. And,
for GRs this complex, we want to reduce friction points as much as
possible.

signature.asc (235 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity" [and 1 more messages]

Dmitry Bogatov-4
In reply to this post by Ian Jackson-2

[2019-11-27 16:19] Ian Jackson <[hidden email]>
> I am not the proposer of any of the options that use the word
> "diversity".  I have addressed this message to (amongst others)
> Dmitry, who is the proponent of the relevant Member-proposed option.
>
> I do not feel I can predict with confidence what Dmitry's view on this
> is, but my guess is that Dmitry would not object to replacing "init
> system diversity" with "support for multiple init systems".
>
> [...]

Yes, I am fine with s/init diversity/support for multiple init systems/g.
--
Note, that I send and fetch email in batch, once in a few days.
Please, mention in body of your reply when you add or remove recepients.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

Kurt Roeckx
In reply to this post by Sam Hartman-3
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 09:07:19AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:

>
> I'm definitely fine with Kurt's revision to the title of Proposal A
> given the similar change to proposal E and Ian's comments.
>
>
> If I'm permitted to make the following change under A.1(6) (that is,
> permitted to make the following change without resetting the clock) I
> propose to make the following small change in proposals A, B and C:
>
> old:
> The project issues the following statement describing our current
> position on Init systems, Init system diversity, and the use of
> systemd facilities.
>
> new:
> The project issues the following statement describing our current
> position on Init systems, multiple init systems, and the use of
> systemd facilities.
>
> I considered combining init systems and multiple init systems.  I have
> higher confidence that I'm not changing the meaning of the sentence
> without combining the clauses though so I propose the smallest possible
> change.

So I did an s/Init system diversity/multiple init systems/. The
text in B and C doesn't match exactly, since B and C still have
"Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), ".

I think this fall under A.1.6.


Kurt

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please drop/replace the use of the term "diversity"

Sam Hartman-3
>>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx <[hidden email]> writes:


    Kurt> So I did an s/Init system diversity/multiple init
    Kurt> systems/. The text in B and C doesn't match exactly, since B
    Kurt> and C still have "Using its power under Constitution section
    Kurt> 4.1 (5), ".

It is intentional that the text in B and C includes the 4.1(5) language
and A does not.
I don't think it matters, but since proposal E didn't specify which
subsection of 4.1 it was using, I didn't want to specify that in A.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC

Sam Hartman-3
In reply to this post by Scott Kitterman-5
TL;DR: Treating people with respect is hard and very contextual.
Choosing to change how you talk about something to make people more
comfortable doesn't always mean you were obligated to make that change.
Sometimes you're just promoting connection.

>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman <[hidden email]> writes:

    Scott> On November 27, 2019 2:54:04 PM UTC, Simon McVittie <[hidden email]> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 11:27:13 +0000, Chris Lamb wrote:
    >>> May I gently request we replace the use of the word "diversity"
    >>> throughout the "init systems and systemd" General Resolution
    >>> prior to it being subject to a plebiscite?
    >>
    >> Thank you for raising this, Chris.
    >>
    >> I agree. I have been uncomfortable with this in the context of
    >> "init diversity" efforts, but I didn't raise it in the past
    >> because I couldn't articulate clearly why I felt that it was a
    >> problem.  Since it's now on-topic, here's my best attempt at
    >>
    >> I would hate to see diversity and inclusion of people (the
    >> meaning of the word used in the name of the Diversity Team)
    >> harmed by creating a perception that the term "diversity" has
    >> been devalued by stretching it to encompass technical
    >> preferences, because I think diversity and inclusion of people is
    >> much too important to let that happen.

    Scott> I am deeply saddened by this message.  I think it is entirely
    Scott> misguided, but I fail to come up with a way to explain it
    Scott> that is no one will think violates our code of conduct.  It's
    Scott> things like this that are causing me to start to view it as a
    Scott> mistake.

Scott, let me take a crack, because I too was deeply conflicted by that
message, especially as I think about the CoC.

First, there's a sense in which I agree with removing the term
diversity.
It's clear that Simon's message  represents a position that resonates
with a number of participants in the discussion.
Those people are  in effect saying "We'd feel more welcome in this
discussion if you'd change the term.  Also, it might make it more likely
your preferred option is selected."

The people using the term diversity thought about it and decided that
they did want to be more welcoming and probably even that they agreed
with the political analysis.
So they proposed changing the term.
That's great.
The CoC encourages us to listen, and to show respect for others.
And I think considering changing the framing of the discussion to
include people is a great thing to do.
The emphasis is on *considering* (and of course when you consider and
conclude it is a good idea, doing).

So in this instance, based on what we saw in the discussion, I think the
term change is great.

We've seen a trend that there are a number of people who are
uncomfortable using concepts like diversity, war, censorship, and free
speech that are globally loaded as part of analogies in a Debian and
free software context.
As I understand it, the CoC says we should consider these needs.

But others actually value those analogies.  No, Debian is not a
government.  Moderating content we distribute is not the same as
government censorship.  And yet, Debian has power in the world.  And
some of those analogies have power because members of our community
would like to see Debian as a force for freedom; they would like to
reflect values both globally and locally.  And so they find using the
same words powerful in both contexts.  We exclude them by denying them
their analogies; that has a cost.  That kind of exclusion can be
disrespectful.

It's a balance.
Just because following the principles in the CoC, we change our
terminology does not mean that was the only reasonable thing to do.
In some situations, we also could have been respectful by acknowledging
the concern, considering it, understanding why we make a choice that
makes some uncomfortable, and continuing to make that choice.  "Hey,
we're not trying to be jerks by talking about freedom of speech.  We
hear and acknowledge the difference you're pointing at, but this
analogy allows us to celebrate something that is important to us."

There are limits.  If you're in a one-on-one conversation and I've
pointed out that I find your termonology uncomfortable, you're probably
being disrespectful if you don't shift in that conversation.

I might well be being disrespectful if I keep asking you to change your
terminology in a setting where people  value it.

If you are using the terminology to provoke and escalate conflict rather
than to call out something you find good, then we might well need to
change the terminology even if you wish we didn't.  As an example,
because of some of the specific examples, and the other attacks, talking
about things in terms of censorship on debian-project early this year
*was* problematic.

In contrast, I think that you can talk about weboob in terms of
censorship if you acknowledge there is a difference between Debian and a
government in that instance and acknowledge there are competing views on
whether it is censorship.


--Sam

12