Re: Renaming the FTP Masters
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 05:37:55PM -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
> PS For people who are concerned that a retreat from the term "master" is
> somehow the language police run dangerously amok, it's worth asking
> why you feel so committed to the term "master" that you would fight
> to keep the project we all work on using terminology we all can
> acknowledge is confused and outdated. If someone is excited to
> improve the project, even if you don't have the capacity to help them
> do it, at least *let* them do it!
Two things:
1/ The assertion "we all can acknowledge is confused and outdated" is
far fom the case. This and other discussions on the matter are
strong evidence that "we can all acknowledge" is a
mischaracterization.
2/ Claimed improvements must in fact improve things. Those proposing
improvements must also demonstrate how the claimed improvements
provide greater benefit than the cost incurred in implementing the
improvements. Your statement seems to imply that those who dissent
should just be quiet and allow those who want to implement change to
implement change without any resistance. I've never ever seen such
an arrangement actually result in a good outcome.
The "FTP Masters" rename primarily concerns the team itself, but it has
the potential to affect every member of the project. Personally, I
rather value the opinions and ideas of those affected and think that
those should be considered alongside the proposals for change. That's
the way this project has determined that we should do things. If we as
a project allow some to make changes without considering the concerns of
those affected by the changes, we are not being faithful to our own
principles.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
Reply to: