[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

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

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

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


Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   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 to: