{"thread":{"id":"50534","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","startedAt":"2019-02-18T16:52:09Z","lastAt":"2019-02-20T19:55:32Z","messageCount":18,"participants":["Randall S. Becker","Michal Suchánek","Junio C Hamano","Senol Yazici","SZEDER Gábor","Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason","Christian Couder","Johannes Schindelin","Philip Oakley"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"369537","messageId":"001601d4c7aa$460c0e70$d2242b50$@nexbridge.com","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"Randall S. Becker","fromEmail":"rsbecker@nexbridge.com","sentAt":"2019-02-18T16:51:57Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-18T16:52:09Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"randall.becker@nexbridge.ca","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/28956764?v=4"},"body":"On February 18, 2019 11:13, I wrote:\n> To: 'Senol Yazici' <sypsilon@googlemail.com>; git@vger.kernel.org\n> Subject: RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)\n> \n> On February 18, 2019 5:47, Senol Yazici\n> > I just stumbled over following page\n> >\n> > https://git-scm.com/about/distributed\n> >\n> > and was wondering if it is possible to\n> >\n> > - demilitarise that “dictator/lieutenant” thing and\n> > - de-religionise that “blessed” thing\n> >\n> > I did not had the feeling that git is “pro military”, or is against “non\n> religious”\n> > developers/users.\n> \n> I think there is a point here. In some of my customers, we have replaced\n> these terms with the following (the Repository is optional in the second two):\n> \n> * Blessed: Repository of Record\n> * Dictator: Committer [Repository]\n> * Lieutenant: Contributor [Repository]\n> \n> This seems more closely aligned with the real roles being applied to activities\n> associated with the repositories involved.\n> \n> Taking a lesson from other Open Source projects, Jenkins has deprecated\n> Master/Slave in favour of Controller/Agent. This seems not only more\n> acceptable to some, but in my view more descriptive. The terms on the page\n> above do not actually make any descriptive sense to a newbie. And confusion\n> could ensue from the dictionary definitions:\n> \n> * Lieutenant: an aide or representative of another in the performance of\n> duty : assistant (not what that repository is for)\n> * Dictator: one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited\n> governmental power (not how the git team behaves)\n> * Blessed: honored in worship : hallowed; of or enjoying happiness (although\n> I can see the happiness part of this one)\n\nIt probably would be worth submitting this as an issue to the documentation project at https://github.com/git/git-scm.com. Depending on the response from the committers, I might be willing to take that on, but digging deeper, I'm not sure the terms I proposed as sufficient.\n\n"},{"id":"369541","messageId":"20190218182638.6a30b53b@kitsune.suse.cz","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"001601d4c7aa$460c0e70$d2242b50$@nexbridge.com","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"Michal Suchánek","fromEmail":"msuchanek@suse.de","sentAt":"2019-02-18T17:26:38Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-18T17:26:43Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msuchanek@suse.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/787652?v=4"},"body":"Hello,\n\nOn Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:51:57 -0500\n\"Randall S. Becker\" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com> wrote:\n\n> On February 18, 2019 11:13, I wrote:\n> > To: 'Senol Yazici' <sypsilon@googlemail.com>; git@vger.kernel.org\n> > Subject: RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)\n> > \n> > On February 18, 2019 5:47, Senol Yazici  \n> > > I just stumbled over following page\n> > >\n> > > https://git-scm.com/about/distributed\n> > >\n> > > and was wondering if it is possible to\n> > >\n> > > - demilitarise that “dictator/lieutenant” thing and\n> > > - de-religionise that “blessed” thing\n> > >\n> > > I did not had the feeling that git is “pro military”, or is against “non  \n> > religious”  \n> > > developers/users.  \n\nI have not. Using common terminology to describe a concept makes it\neasier to understand.\n\n'dictator' is not military at all. 'lieutenant' is often used in\nmilitary context but according to The Collaborative International\nDictionary of English v.0.48 the most common meaning is \"An officer who\nsupplies the place of a superior in his absence; a representative of,\nor substitute for, another in the performance of any duty.\"\n\n> > \n> > I think there is a point here. In some of my customers, we have\n> > replaced these terms with the following (the Repository is optional\n> > in the second two):\n> > \n> > * Blessed: Repository of Record\n\nI think 'Blessed' is way easier to understand than 'Repository of\nRecord'. Also 'blessed' is not necessarily connected to religion. For\nexample, you can get your parent's blessing even when they are not\nreligious, whatever it's worth.\n\n> > * Dictator: Committer [Repository]\n> > * Lieutenant: Contributor [Repository]\n> > \n> > This seems more closely aligned with the real roles being applied to activities\n> > associated with the repositories involved.\n> > \n> > Taking a lesson from other Open Source projects, Jenkins has deprecated\n> > Master/Slave in favour of Controller/Agent. This seems not only more\n> > acceptable to some, but in my view more descriptive. \n\nOf course, master/slave can have connotations with some not so nice\nhistorical episodes.\n\nI think that to some 'agent' might be less acceptable because it might\nhave connotation with some other not so nice historical episodes which\nare described with some literary license in the '1984' novel.\n\nAs far as descriptivity goes both terminologies are misleading in\ndifferent ways. Only when you are aware that it has changed it makes\nthings actually clearer.\n\n> The terms on the page\n> > above do not actually make any descriptive sense to a newbie. And confusion\n> > could ensue from the dictionary definitions:\n> > \n> > * Lieutenant: an aide or representative of another in the performance of\n> > duty : assistant (not what that repository is for)\nI beg to differ. That's exactly what the repository is for.\n> > * Dictator: one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited\n> > governmental power (not how the git team behaves)\nIf you are the sole person with the right to change the 'blessed' or\n'master' repository then this describes the role quite well.\n\nThanks\n\nMichal\n"},{"id":"369542","messageId":"xmqqimxh2b61.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"001601d4c7aa$460c0e70$d2242b50$@nexbridge.com","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2019-02-18T18:39:50Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-18T18:39:55Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"\"Randall S. Becker\" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com> writes:\n\n>> Taking a lesson from other Open Source projects, Jenkins has deprecated\n>> Master/Slave in favour of Controller/Agent. This seems not only more\n>> acceptable to some, but in my view more descriptive. The terms on the page\n>> above do not actually make any descriptive sense to a newbie. And confusion\n>> could ensue from the dictionary definitions:\n>> \n>> * Lieutenant: an aide or representative of another in the performance of\n>> duty : assistant (not what that repository is for)\n>> * Dictator: one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited\n>> governmental power (not how the git team behaves)\n>> * Blessed: honored in worship : hallowed; of or enjoying happiness (although\n>> I can see the happiness part of this one)\n>\n> It probably would be worth submitting this as an issue to the\n> documentation project at\n> https://github.com/git/git-scm.com. Depending on the response from\n> the committers, I might be willing to take that on, but digging\n> deeper, I'm not sure the terms I proposed as sufficient.\n\nI personally do not feel these three words are so problematic to\nspend bandwidth discussing on here; it probably is partly because I\nam not a native speaker and am not too much disturbed by connotations\nthey may make those who are more fluent with the language feel.\n\nThe page describing various ways a project can be structured uses\nthe kernel project as one of the examples, and over there, at least\n\"lieutenant\" is a well understood term to describe those who feed\nLinus (because Linus does not scale otherwise).  I do not know if\nLinus is called \"dictator\" there but I trust those who wrote that\n\"distributed\" page knew what the words commonly used in the example\nproject they chose.  Deviating from the words they use would make\nthe example harder to understand.\n\nFor that matter, I do not know why borrowing vocabulary from any\nwell understood area, be it military or religion, is a bad idea to\nbegin with.  I personally have no issues with people who worship\ndeity of their own (or none). That probably is also due to where I\ncome from, where we have 8 million of them ;-)\n\nSo, if the reason why some people feel \"blessed\" is a bad phrasing\nto use is because it came from a particilar religion and other\nreligions have no such concept, I do not agree with such a feeling\nat all, as long as those who hear it all know what the speaker means\nby the word.  I would have more problems if we pick a word rarely\nused that nobody would understand.\n\nI _think_ that is what the distinction between \"acceptable\" vs \"more\ndescriptive\" mentioned in the early part I quoted in this message\ntalks about---I do not quite by \"acceptable\" part, but I care more\nabout \"more descriptive\" part.\n\nThansk.\n\n\n\n"},{"id":"369616","messageId":"CAFacdQ_9=2hbC8-5+N=RdrGs=Anu2ku+TAj7x07OQNpa1b+gcg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"xmqqimxh2b61.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"Senol Yazici","fromEmail":"sypsilon@googlemail.com","sentAt":"2019-02-19T08:02:43Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-19T08:02:21Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sypsilon@googlemail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Dear all,\n\nThank you for the quick response and apologize my late reply (good\nmorning from Europe).\n\nI understand that well \"established\" concepts might make it easier\ngrasping concepts.\n\nMy concerns towards using these particular expressions\n(dictator/lieutenant/blessed) are nevertheless motivated.\n\n1. Dictator\nConcern: \"Bad\" connotation.\n\nI agree, dictator is not military, but it is not \"not military at\nall\", see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictator.\nExcept of case 1 a (and 2, which is not applicable in this context),\ncases b and c are related to either \"autocrat\" or \"fascist dictator\".\nBoth of these historical \"figures\" majorities abused their military\npower to \"rule\" in an oppresive way.\nFurther, \"googling\" dictator does not give Linus as a result in (at\nleast my) search (bubble).\nIt gives the well known bad examples of dictators usually having\nabused or are abusing their powers in an oppressive/tyrannical way.\n\nSuggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.\n\n2. Lieutenant (somehow I manage to misspell this word most of the times)\nConcern: Strong relation to military.\n\nI also agree here, lieutenant is not military, again see\nhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principal.\nThe connotation here is also not as negative as it is with dictator.\nHowever, googling lieutenant results in mostly military figures.\n\nSuggestion for substitution: Assistant or assistant integrator.\n\n3. Blessed repository\nConcern: Rather exclusive than inclusive.\n\nI agree, blessed is not a bad phrasing. But if one is not\nattached/related to a religion in some way, one somehow feels left\nout.\nIt is creating some troubles explaining this to the \"curious young\nmind\" (i.e. children) without having to mention religion at some point\nof the explanation.\nWhy should one need to go there in a discussion of how \"big projects\"\nare dealt with?\nOf course, one could say \"it is another word for approved\" and neglect\nthe origin of the word.\nWhat would then be left as a motivation to use this word at all, and\nnot use approved?\n\nThe more I try to understand what \"blessed\" in a context of a\nrepository wants to tell me about it's current state, the less I am\nunderstanding.\n\nI think the state of the repository is something like \"Approved by\nprincipal integrator\" or \"Principal integrator (PI) approved\", thus...\n\nSuggestion for substitution: PI-Approved repository\n\nWords have their weight.\nIn times where the entire world is accessible by the \"click of a\nfinger\" it is becoming more and more important to be inclusive.\nFurther, in a world where hundred of millions live in conditions ruled\nby dictators or military regimes _I_ care more about acceptable than\n\"descriptive\".\n\nI am not sure if someone in a \"warlike\" situation will feel \"included\"\nfinding these expressions when it is about software development\nprojects!\n\nAgain thanks for your attention and participation in the discussion.\n\nBest regards,\nSenol Yazici\n\n\nSenol\n\nOn Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 19:39, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:\n>\n> \"Randall S. Becker\" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com> writes:\n>\n> >> Taking a lesson from other Open Source projects, Jenkins has deprecated\n> >> Master/Slave in favour of Controller/Agent. This seems not only more\n> >> acceptable to some, but in my view more descriptive. The terms on the page\n> >> above do not actually make any descriptive sense to a newbie. And confusion\n> >> could ensue from the dictionary definitions:\n> >>\n> >> * Lieutenant: an aide or representative of another in the performance of\n> >> duty : assistant (not what that repository is for)\n> >> * Dictator: one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited\n> >> governmental power (not how the git team behaves)\n> >> * Blessed: honored in worship : hallowed; of or enjoying happiness (although\n> >> I can see the happiness part of this one)\n> >\n> > It probably would be worth submitting this as an issue to the\n> > documentation project at\n> > https://github.com/git/git-scm.com. Depending on the response from\n> > the committers, I might be willing to take that on, but digging\n> > deeper, I'm not sure the terms I proposed as sufficient.\n>\n> I personally do not feel these three words are so problematic to\n> spend bandwidth discussing on here; it probably is partly because I\n> am not a native speaker and am not too much disturbed by connotations\n> they may make those who are more fluent with the language feel.\n>\n> The page describing various ways a project can be structured uses\n> the kernel project as one of the examples, and over there, at least\n> \"lieutenant\" is a well understood term to describe those who feed\n> Linus (because Linus does not scale otherwise).  I do not know if\n> Linus is called \"dictator\" there but I trust those who wrote that\n> \"distributed\" page knew what the words commonly used in the example\n> project they chose.  Deviating from the words they use would make\n> the example harder to understand.\n>\n> For that matter, I do not know why borrowing vocabulary from any\n> well understood area, be it military or religion, is a bad idea to\n> begin with.  I personally have no issues with people who worship\n> deity of their own (or none). That probably is also due to where I\n> come from, where we have 8 million of them ;-)\n>\n> So, if the reason why some people feel \"blessed\" is a bad phrasing\n> to use is because it came from a particilar religion and other\n> religions have no such concept, I do not agree with such a feeling\n> at all, as long as those who hear it all know what the speaker means\n> by the word.  I would have more problems if we pick a word rarely\n> used that nobody would understand.\n>\n> I _think_ that is what the distinction between \"acceptable\" vs \"more\n> descriptive\" mentioned in the early part I quoted in this message\n> talks about---I do not quite by \"acceptable\" part, but I care more\n> about \"more descriptive\" part.\n>\n> Thansk.\n>\n>\n>\n"},{"id":"369621","messageId":"20190219103906.3fc4c231@naga.suse.cz","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"CAFacdQ_9=2hbC8-5+N=RdrGs=Anu2ku+TAj7x07OQNpa1b+gcg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"Michal Suchánek","fromEmail":"msuchanek@suse.de","sentAt":"2019-02-19T09:39:06Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-19T09:39:12Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msuchanek@suse.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/787652?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:02:43 +0100\nSenol Yazici <sypsilon@googlemail.com> wrote:\n\n> Dear all,\n> \n> Thank you for the quick response and apologize my late reply (good\n> morning from Europe).\n> \n> I understand that well \"established\" concepts might make it easier\n> grasping concepts.\n> \n> My concerns towards using these particular expressions\n> (dictator/lieutenant/blessed) are nevertheless motivated.\n> \n> 1. Dictator\n> Concern: \"Bad\" connotation.\n> \n> I agree, dictator is not military, but it is not \"not military at\n> all\", see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictator.\n> Except of case 1 a (and 2, which is not applicable in this context),\n> cases b and c are related to either \"autocrat\" or \"fascist dictator\".\n> Both of these historical \"figures\" majorities abused their military\n> power to \"rule\" in an oppresive way.\n> Further, \"googling\" dictator does not give Linus as a result in (at\n> least my) search (bubble).\n> It gives the well known bad examples of dictators usually having\n> abused or are abusing their powers in an oppressive/tyrannical way.\n\nYou could say that serves as a reminder that authority comes with\nresponsibility ;-)\n> \n> Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.\n> \n> 2. Lieutenant (somehow I manage to misspell this word most of the times)\n> Concern: Strong relation to military.\n> \n> I also agree here, lieutenant is not military, again see\n> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principal.\n> The connotation here is also not as negative as it is with dictator.\n> However, googling lieutenant results in mostly military figures.\n> \n> Suggestion for substitution: Assistant or assistant integrator.\n\nSo now the terms sound a lot like a corporate lingo. Is it now turn for\nenthusiasts and entrepreneurs to feel excluded because git is meant\nonly for corporations, and for people who had bad experience as\ncorporate employees to feel offended?\n\n> \n> 3. Blessed repository\n> Concern: Rather exclusive than inclusive.\n> \n> I agree, blessed is not a bad phrasing. But if one is not\n> attached/related to a religion in some way, one somehow feels left\n> out.\n> It is creating some troubles explaining this to the \"curious young\n> mind\" (i.e. children) without having to mention religion at some point\n> of the explanation.\n> Why should one need to go there in a discussion of how \"big projects\"\n> are dealt with?\n> Of course, one could say \"it is another word for approved\" and neglect\n> the origin of the word.\n> What would then be left as a motivation to use this word at all, and\n> not use approved?\n> \n> The more I try to understand what \"blessed\" in a context of a\n> repository wants to tell me about it's current state, the less I am\n> understanding.\n> \n> I think the state of the repository is something like \"Approved by\n> principal integrator\" or \"Principal integrator (PI) approved\", thus...\n> \n> Suggestion for substitution: PI-Approved repository\n> \n> Words have their weight.\n\nThe problem is they all have weight, and different words have different\nweights for different people.\n\n> In times where the entire world is accessible by the \"click of a\n> finger\" it is becoming more and more important to be inclusive.\n> Further, in a world where hundred of millions live in conditions ruled\n> by dictators or military regimes _I_ care more about acceptable than\n> \"descriptive\".\n\nI would like to point out that dictators rarely call themselves\n'dictator' so whatever negative connotations people living in actual\ndictatorships are most likely connected with the person of the dictator\nor the title the dictator chose for themselves and not the actual word\n'dictator'.\n\nAlso once you go down this route you will find that most words have\nsome negative connotation to some people. If you manage to find a few\npurely neutral words and write your documentation with them people will\nlikely learn to hate them over time because they will read them again\nand again in vague politically correct documentation that does not\ndescribe what it is supposed to document in fear of offending somebody.\n\nAt that point you can just delete the page from the documentation and\nbe done with it.\n\n> \n> I am not sure if someone in a \"warlike\" situation will feel \"included\"\n> finding these expressions when it is about software development\n> projects!\n\nI don't feel included in projects where the documentation is\nunintelligible for use of vague and non-descriptitve words.\n\nThanks\n\nMichal\n"},{"id":"369623","messageId":"20190219100136.GO1622@szeder.dev","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"CAFacdQ_9=2hbC8-5+N=RdrGs=Anu2ku+TAj7x07OQNpa1b+gcg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"SZEDER Gábor","fromEmail":"szeder.dev@gmail.com","sentAt":"2019-02-19T10:01:36Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-19T10:01:42Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"szeder.dev@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/116324?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 09:02:43AM +0100, Senol Yazici wrote:\n> 1. Dictator\n> Concern: \"Bad\" connotation.\n\n\"Benevolent dictator\" is a well-established term in open source\nprojects, and it has an inherently good connotation.\n \n> Further, \"googling\" dictator does not give Linus as a result in (at\n> least my) search (bubble).\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life\n\n> Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.\n\nThese are poor substitutions.\n\n"},{"id":"369626","messageId":"CAFacdQ-Pcvz3vfP31uwuK7pap7t5oyDVTHGnwvGasWMf9zrgYA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"20190219100136.GO1622@szeder.dev","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"Senol Yazici","fromEmail":"sypsilon@googlemail.com","sentAt":"2019-02-19T11:00:31Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-19T11:00:09Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sypsilon@googlemail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Hi Gabor,\n\nthanks for the constructive feedback.\n\nHi Michal,\n\n- I might be an enthusiast but i am definitively not offended. :D\n\n- I am wondering for whom dictator has a positive weight... no matter\nwho calls them dictator! ;)\n\n- Which negative connotation do you have with \"principal\" or\n\"integrator\" or \"approved\"? :)\n\n- Does a documentation sounds sexier if its \"rebellion\" than \"_not_\nvague politically correct\"?\n\n- I did not \"understand\" \"dictator\" \"lieutenant\" nor \"blessed\".\n\n- I think that words form the world we live in, deliberate choice of\n\"bad\" connotation and exclusive expressions form an adequate world.\n\nThanks for the insight. :)\n\nCheers,\nSenol\n\nOn Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 11:01, SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> wrote:\n>\n> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 09:02:43AM +0100, Senol Yazici wrote:\n> > 1. Dictator\n> > Concern: \"Bad\" connotation.\n>\n> \"Benevolent dictator\" is a well-established term in open source\n> projects, and it has an inherently good connotation.\n>\n> > Further, \"googling\" dictator does not give Linus as a result in (at\n> > least my) search (bubble).\n>\n> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life\n>\n> > Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.\n>\n> These are poor substitutions.\n>\n"},{"id":"369628","messageId":"87o97858ko.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"CAFacdQ_9=2hbC8-5+N=RdrGs=Anu2ku+TAj7x07OQNpa1b+gcg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason","fromEmail":"avarab@gmail.com","sentAt":"2019-02-19T11:19:51Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-19T11:19:56Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"avarab@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45301?v=4"},"body":"\nOn Tue, Feb 19 2019, Senol Yazici wrote:\n\n> Thank you for the quick response and apologize my late reply (good\n> morning from Europe).\n>\n> I understand that well \"established\" concepts might make it easier\n> grasping concepts.\n>\n> My concerns towards using these particular expressions\n> (dictator/lieutenant/blessed) are nevertheless motivated.\n>\n> 1. Dictator\n> Concern: \"Bad\" connotation.\n>\n> I agree, dictator is not military, but it is not \"not military at\n> all\", see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictator.\n> Except of case 1 a (and 2, which is not applicable in this context),\n> cases b and c are related to either \"autocrat\" or \"fascist dictator\".\n> Both of these historical \"figures\" majorities abused their military\n> power to \"rule\" in an oppresive way.\n> Further, \"googling\" dictator does not give Linus as a result in (at\n> least my) search (bubble).\n> It gives the well known bad examples of dictators usually having\n> abused or are abusing their powers in an oppressive/tyrannical way.\n>\n> Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.\n>\n> 2. Lieutenant (somehow I manage to misspell this word most of the times)\n> Concern: Strong relation to military.\n>\n> I also agree here, lieutenant is not military, again see\n> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principal.\n> The connotation here is also not as negative as it is with dictator.\n> However, googling lieutenant results in mostly military figures.\n>\n> Suggestion for substitution: Assistant or assistant integrator.\n>\n> 3. Blessed repository\n> Concern: Rather exclusive than inclusive.\n>\n> I agree, blessed is not a bad phrasing. But if one is not\n> attached/related to a religion in some way, one somehow feels left\n> out.\n> It is creating some troubles explaining this to the \"curious young\n> mind\" (i.e. children) without having to mention religion at some point\n> of the explanation.\n> Why should one need to go there in a discussion of how \"big projects\"\n> are dealt with?\n> Of course, one could say \"it is another word for approved\" and neglect\n> the origin of the word.\n> What would then be left as a motivation to use this word at all, and\n> not use approved?\n>\n> The more I try to understand what \"blessed\" in a context of a\n> repository wants to tell me about it's current state, the less I am\n> understanding.\n>\n> I think the state of the repository is something like \"Approved by\n> principal integrator\" or \"Principal integrator (PI) approved\", thus...\n>\n> Suggestion for substitution: PI-Approved repository\n>\n> Words have their weight.\n> In times where the entire world is accessible by the \"click of a\n> finger\" it is becoming more and more important to be inclusive.\n> Further, in a world where hundred of millions live in conditions ruled\n> by dictators or military regimes _I_ care more about acceptable than\n> \"descriptive\".\n>\n> I am not sure if someone in a \"warlike\" situation will feel \"included\"\n> finding these expressions when it is about software development\n> projects!\n>\n> Again thanks for your attention and participation in the discussion.\n\nTwo things:\n\n 1) Whatever anyone's abstract position on the wording of our\n    documentation, either the one stored in git.git or at\n    https://github.com/git/git-scm.com there's only so much a\n    theoretical discussion like this can get us.\n\n    If you're willing to pursue this further I think it's best if that's\n    done in the form of patches to either repositories, either sent here\n    on-list (see Documentation/SubmittingPatches) or as a PR to\n    https://github.com/git/git-scm.com\n\n 2) Any piece of software or technical tool is going to unavoidably need\n    to use some amount of jargon, or words that are lifted from a more\n    general vocabulary and intended to be understood in context.\n\n    Thus, when we talk about e.g. \"trees\" in git, it's understood that\n    we're talking about something in the context of this software\n    project, trying to go by the first Google result of \"tree\" isn't\n    going to get you anywhere.\n\nI for one thing those git-scm docs could be changed to eliminate those\nwords for reasons entirely unrelated to them somehow being religious or\nmilitaristic. Specifically:\n\n * \"blessed\" is introduced in quotes and used twice. I think it would be\n   clearer to use \"canonical\" for what it's describing.\n\n * The docs already use \"integration manager\" and then introduce\n   \"dictator\" as a synonym in the context of explaining the workflow of\n   the kernel.\n\n   They could instead use \"main integrator\" or something, since the\n   point of the example is to explain how git can be used to manage\n   distributed repositories that are integrated in a hierarchical\n   manner.\n\n   Making assumptions about how much power the \"main integrator\" has to\n   approve/reject changes is irrelevant to that explanation.\n\n   E.g. the kernel could also decide to make the \"main integrator\" some\n   purely automated process that always approves changes from\n   lieutenants and the hierarchical example would be just as true.\n"},{"id":"369633","messageId":"20190219143328.20fce291@kitsune.suse.cz","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"87o97858ko.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"Michal Suchánek","fromEmail":"msuchanek@suse.de","sentAt":"2019-02-19T13:33:28Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-19T13:33:31Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msuchanek@suse.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/787652?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:19:51 +0100\nÆvar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:\n\n> On Tue, Feb 19 2019, Senol Yazici wrote:\n> \n\n>  2) Any piece of software or technical tool is going to unavoidably need\n>     to use some amount of jargon, or words that are lifted from a more\n>     general vocabulary and intended to be understood in context.\n> \n>     Thus, when we talk about e.g. \"trees\" in git, it's understood that\n>     we're talking about something in the context of this software\n>     project, trying to go by the first Google result of \"tree\" isn't\n>     going to get you anywhere.\n> \n> I for one thing those git-scm docs could be changed to eliminate those\n> words for reasons entirely unrelated to them somehow being religious or\n> militaristic. Specifically:\n> \n>  * \"blessed\" is introduced in quotes and used twice. I think it would be\n>    clearer to use \"canonical\" for what it's describing.\n> \n>  * The docs already use \"integration manager\" and then introduce\n>    \"dictator\" as a synonym in the context of explaining the workflow of\n>    the kernel.\n> \n>    They could instead use \"main integrator\" or something, since the\n>    point of the example is to explain how git can be used to manage\n>    distributed repositories that are integrated in a hierarchical\n>    manner.\n\nAnd that is a good reason to change the wording for once.\n\nThanks\n\nMichal\n"},{"id":"369635","messageId":"CAP8UFD0WCmPSb1ccj+yRVEMC8T9oFbznJ6PPuOhGC-BCru6uAg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"87o97858ko.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2019-02-19T13:52:40Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-19T13:52:55Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:23 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason\n<avarab@gmail.com> wrote:\n>\n> Two things:\n>\n>  1) Whatever anyone's abstract position on the wording of our\n>     documentation, either the one stored in git.git or at\n>     https://github.com/git/git-scm.com there's only so much a\n>     theoretical discussion like this can get us.\n>\n>     If you're willing to pursue this further I think it's best if that's\n>     done in the form of patches to either repositories, either sent here\n>     on-list (see Documentation/SubmittingPatches) or as a PR to\n>     https://github.com/git/git-scm.com\n\nI agree.\n\n>  2) Any piece of software or technical tool is going to unavoidably need\n>     to use some amount of jargon, or words that are lifted from a more\n>     general vocabulary and intended to be understood in context.\n>\n>     Thus, when we talk about e.g. \"trees\" in git, it's understood that\n>     we're talking about something in the context of this software\n>     project, trying to go by the first Google result of \"tree\" isn't\n>     going to get you anywhere.\n>\n> I for one thing those git-scm docs could be changed to eliminate those\n> words for reasons entirely unrelated to them somehow being religious or\n> militaristic.\n\nI agree that it would be a much better outcome of this discussion.\n\n>  * The docs already use \"integration manager\" and then introduce\n>    \"dictator\" as a synonym in the context of explaining the workflow of\n>    the kernel.\n>\n>    They could instead use \"main integrator\" or something, since the\n>    point of the example is to explain how git can be used to manage\n>    distributed repositories that are integrated in a hierarchical\n>    manner.\n\nI would suggest considering \"maintainer\" or \"main maintainer\" or \"top\nlevel maintainer\", as I think \"maintainer\" is one of the most common\nword used for the role in the Linux kernel and Git communities. By the\nway it's often used in expressions like \"sub-system maintainer\", which\nmaybe could be used to replace \"lieutenant\".\n\n(In Git Rev News I think I have always used \"the Git maintainer\" to\ntalk about Junio for example.)\n\n>    Making assumptions about how much power the \"main integrator\" has to\n>    approve/reject changes is irrelevant to that explanation.\n>\n>    E.g. the kernel could also decide to make the \"main integrator\" some\n>    purely automated process that always approves changes from\n>    lieutenants and the hierarchical example would be just as true.\n\nThanks for your insight on this,\nChristian.\n"},{"id":"369636","messageId":"20190219145835.3cc1e545@kitsune.suse.cz","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD0WCmPSb1ccj+yRVEMC8T9oFbznJ6PPuOhGC-BCru6uAg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"Michal Suchánek","fromEmail":"msuchanek@suse.de","sentAt":"2019-02-19T13:58:35Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-19T13:58:39Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msuchanek@suse.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/787652?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:52:40 +0100\nChristian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:\n\n> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:23 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason\n> <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:\n> >\n> > Two things:\n> >\n> >  1) Whatever anyone's abstract position on the wording of our\n> >     documentation, either the one stored in git.git or at\n> >     https://github.com/git/git-scm.com there's only so much a\n> >     theoretical discussion like this can get us.\n> >\n> >     If you're willing to pursue this further I think it's best if that's\n> >     done in the form of patches to either repositories, either sent here\n> >     on-list (see Documentation/SubmittingPatches) or as a PR to\n> >     https://github.com/git/git-scm.com  \n> \n> I agree.\n> \n> >  2) Any piece of software or technical tool is going to unavoidably need\n> >     to use some amount of jargon, or words that are lifted from a more\n> >     general vocabulary and intended to be understood in context.\n> >\n> >     Thus, when we talk about e.g. \"trees\" in git, it's understood that\n> >     we're talking about something in the context of this software\n> >     project, trying to go by the first Google result of \"tree\" isn't\n> >     going to get you anywhere.\n> >\n> > I for one thing those git-scm docs could be changed to eliminate those\n> > words for reasons entirely unrelated to them somehow being religious or\n> > militaristic.  \n> \n> I agree that it would be a much better outcome of this discussion.\n> \n> >  * The docs already use \"integration manager\" and then introduce\n> >    \"dictator\" as a synonym in the context of explaining the workflow of\n> >    the kernel.\n> >\n> >    They could instead use \"main integrator\" or something, since the\n> >    point of the example is to explain how git can be used to manage\n> >    distributed repositories that are integrated in a hierarchical\n> >    manner.  \n> \n> I would suggest considering \"maintainer\" or \"main maintainer\" or \"top\n> level maintainer\", as I think \"maintainer\" is one of the most common\n> word used for the role in the Linux kernel and Git communities. By the\n> way it's often used in expressions like \"sub-system maintainer\", which\n> maybe could be used to replace \"lieutenant\".\n> \n\nWhich suggests certain way the responsibility is divided in the project\nand limits the thinking of the people reading the documentations.\n\nWhile for many projects it is sensible to divide the project into\nsubsystems and have subsystem maintainers for some it is not and they\nneed different way to divide the work.\n\nFor some projects the role of maintainer and integrator is fulfilled by\nthe same person and for some it might be not.\n\nThanks\n\nMichal\n"},{"id":"369646","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1902191540220.41@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"20190219103906.3fc4c231@naga.suse.cz","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2019-02-19T14:47:08Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-19T14:47:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Michal,\n\nOn Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Michal Suchánek wrote:\n\n> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:02:43 +0100\n> Senol Yazici <sypsilon@googlemail.com> wrote:\n> \n> > Suggestion for substitution: Assistant or assistant integrator.\n> \n> So now the terms sound a lot like a corporate lingo. Is it now turn for\n> enthusiasts and entrepreneurs to feel excluded because git is meant\n> only for corporations, and for people who had bad experience as\n> corporate employees to feel offended?\n\nThe concern that was raised is a valid one. Words can do real harm, and we\nshould try not to keep perpetrating that same harm. We still have language\nin our very README that puts off some people, for no good reason\nwhatsoever.\n\nI find your comments quite offensive, as they seem to all try to downplay\nthe importance of words, when all you could say is that *you* have the\ninsane luck of being in a time and place where *you personally* are not\naffected. But to belittle others who do not share that privilege is quite\nout of line.\n\nSo let's give voice to those who have kind words, and rest our combative\nlanguage.\n\nIn other words, I welcome Senol's contribution, and hope that it will\ncumulate in a Pull Request that fixes the website.\n\nCiao,\nJohannes"},{"id":"369648","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1902191547510.41@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"20190219100136.GO1622@szeder.dev","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2019-02-19T14:58:00Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-19T14:58:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Gábor,\n\nOn Tue, 19 Feb 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:\n\n> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 09:02:43AM +0100, Senol Yazici wrote:\n> > 1. Dictator\n> > Concern: \"Bad\" connotation.\n> \n> \"Benevolent dictator\" is a well-established term in open source\n> projects, and it has an inherently good connotation.\n\nIt is a well-established term, alright. Does it have an inherently good\nconnotation? No, absolutely not. Every time anybody calls me the BDFL of\nGit for Windows, it annoys me, to say the least.\n\nAnd yes, when I pull out my generous self, I can give you that the\n*intention* was funny. But to some, it is not funny at all.\n\nBesides, in our field we had pretty established terminology for a long\ntime. It was the *architect* who had the final say over what goes in and\nwhat stays out. And the respective team leaders were responsible for\nrespective areas of the code, trusted by the architect.\n\n> > Further, \"googling\" dictator does not give Linus as a result in (at\n> > least my) search (bubble).\n> \n> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life\n> \n> > Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.\n> \n> These are poor substitutions.\n\nI agree that those are poor substitutions, but shooting down without\ngiving better alternatives is a poor way to reply ;-)\n\nCiao,\nDscho"},{"id":"369649","messageId":"20190219172025.5577eb31@kitsune.suse.cz","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1902191547510.41@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"Michal Suchánek","fromEmail":"msuchanek@suse.de","sentAt":"2019-02-19T16:20:25Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-19T16:20:31Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msuchanek@suse.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/787652?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 15:58:00 +0100 (STD)\nJohannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:\n\n> Hi Gábor,\n> \n> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:\n> \n> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 09:02:43AM +0100, Senol Yazici wrote:  \n> > > 1. Dictator\n> > > Concern: \"Bad\" connotation.  \n> > \n> > \"Benevolent dictator\" is a well-established term in open source\n> > projects, and it has an inherently good connotation.  \n> \n> It is a well-established term, alright. Does it have an inherently good\n> connotation? No, absolutely not. Every time anybody calls me the BDFL of\n> Git for Windows, it annoys me, to say the least.\n> \n> And yes, when I pull out my generous self, I can give you that the\n> *intention* was funny. But to some, it is not funny at all.\n> \n> Besides, in our field we had pretty established terminology for a long\n> time. It was the *architect* who had the final say over what goes in and\n> what stays out. And the respective team leaders were responsible for\n> respective areas of the code, trusted by the architect.\n\nEstablished to some perhaps. However, it is rarely the architect\nmerging to the master repository. Architect and team leaders also\nsuggests corporate structure. Is git for corporate users only just as\nthe previous suggested that it is militaristic?\n\n> \n> > > Further, \"googling\" dictator does not give Linus as a result in (at\n> > > least my) search (bubble).  \n> > \n> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life\n> >   \n> > > Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.  \n> > \n> > These are poor substitutions.  \n> \n> I agree that those are poor substitutions, but shooting down without\n> giving better alternatives is a poor way to reply ;-)\n\nNo, not at all.\n\nIt is very poor reply to critique to say that better alternative should\nbe provided. The solution stays poor even if you don't have a better\none readily available.\n\nThanks\n\nMichal\n"},{"id":"369651","messageId":"20190219172813.3f318240@kitsune.suse.cz","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1902191540220.41@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"Michal Suchánek","fromEmail":"msuchanek@suse.de","sentAt":"2019-02-19T16:28:13Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-19T16:28:18Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msuchanek@suse.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/787652?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 15:47:08 +0100 (STD)\nJohannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:\n\n> Hi Michal,\n> \n> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Michal Suchánek wrote:\n> \n> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:02:43 +0100\n> > Senol Yazici <sypsilon@googlemail.com> wrote:\n> >   \n> > > Suggestion for substitution: Assistant or assistant integrator.  \n> > \n> > So now the terms sound a lot like a corporate lingo. Is it now turn for\n> > enthusiasts and entrepreneurs to feel excluded because git is meant\n> > only for corporations, and for people who had bad experience as\n> > corporate employees to feel offended?  \n> \n> The concern that was raised is a valid one. Words can do real harm, and we\n> should try not to keep perpetrating that same harm. We still have language\n> in our very README that puts off some people, for no good reason\n> whatsoever.\n> \n> I find your comments quite offensive, as they seem to all try to downplay\n> the importance of words, when all you could say is that *you* have the\n> insane luck of being in a time and place where *you personally* are not\n> affected. But to belittle others who do not share that privilege is quite\n> out of line.\n\nThen please stick to your advice and do not belittle *my* concerns\neither. \n\n> \n> So let's give voice to those who have kind words, and rest our combative\n> language.\n\nPlease do, thank you very much.\n\n> \n> In other words, I welcome Senol's contribution, and hope that it will\n> cumulate in a Pull Request that fixes the website.\n\nAnd so long as it is a fix that makes the documentation clear rather\nthan trading one potentially offensive term for another also potentially\noffensive and even less descriptive I welcome it as well.\n\nThanks\n\nMichal\n"},{"id":"369666","messageId":"57234e45-69f3-8ff8-b232-eff4985efda5@iee.org","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1902191547510.41@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"Philip Oakley","fromEmail":"philipoakley@iee.org","sentAt":"2019-02-19T20:16:02Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-19T20:16:05Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"philipoakley@iee.email","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/914343?v=4"},"body":"Hi all,\n\nOn 19/02/2019 14:58, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> Hi Gábor,\n>\n> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:\n>\n>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 09:02:43AM +0100, Senol Yazici wrote:\n>>> 1. Dictator\n>>> Concern: \"Bad\" connotation.\n>> \"Benevolent dictator\" is a well-established term in open source\n>> projects, and it has an inherently good connotation.\n> It is a well-established term, alright. Does it have an inherently good\n> connotation? No, absolutely not. Every time anybody calls me the BDFL of\n> Git for Windows, it annoys me, to say the least.\n>\n> And yes, when I pull out my generous self, I can give you that the\n> *intention* was funny. But to some, it is not funny at all.\n>\n> Besides, in our field we had pretty established terminology for a long\n> time. It was the *architect* who had the final say over what goes in and\n> what stays out. And the respective team leaders were responsible for\n> respective areas of the code, trusted by the architect.\n>\n>>> Further, \"googling\" dictator does not give Linus as a result in (at\n>>> least my) search (bubble).\n>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life\n>>\n>>> Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.\n>> These are poor substitutions.\n> I agree that those are poor substitutions, but shooting down without\n> giving better alternatives is a poor way to reply ;-)\n>\n> Ciao,\n> Dscho\n\nI tend to agree that the 'Dictator' perspective is probably a pretty \npoor choice in modern times, while the other (Lieutenant, Blessed, etc.) \nword choices are now considered (in much of the millennial society) to \nbe old fashioned, or worse.\n\nHowever I do caution that we can't be fair all the time. There are a \nrange of impossibility theorems [1,2] regarding making things fair.\n\nUltimately some one (The Maintainer) must make the discriminatory \ndecision as to what to accept, what to choose, or  to reject, or select \ntheir own preference.\n\nA probably bigger problem is actually the limited number of actual \nworkflows styles that are recorded (and hence shortage of words for \nthem). For example: patches vs PRs; review process style; even a term \nfor the users 'backup' repo (on GitHub, GitLab, etc) and how it should \noperate. The mental models here can be hard.\n\n\nPhilip\n\n\n[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIXIuYdnyyk Tutorial: 21 fairness \ndefinitions and their politics, Published on Mar 1, 2018\n\n[2] Arvind Narayanan: Associate professor of computer science at \nPrinceton <https://www.youtube.com/user/33BitsOfEntropy>\n\n"},{"id":"369703","messageId":"20190220111703.GP1622@szeder.dev","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1902191547510.41@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"SZEDER Gábor","fromEmail":"szeder.dev@gmail.com","sentAt":"2019-02-20T11:17:03Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-20T11:17:10Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"szeder.dev@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/116324?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 03:58:00PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:\n> \n> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 09:02:43AM +0100, Senol Yazici wrote:\n> > > 1. Dictator\n> > > Concern: \"Bad\" connotation.\n> > \n> > \"Benevolent dictator\" is a well-established term in open source\n> > projects, and it has an inherently good connotation.\n> \n> It is a well-established term, alright. Does it have an inherently good\n> connotation? No, absolutely not. Every time anybody calls me the BDFL of\n> Git for Windows, it annoys me, to say the least.\n\nI would consider this an honour, but I'm not in danger of being\nlabelled as such.\n\n\n> > > Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.\n> > \n> > These are poor substitutions.\n> \n> I agree that those are poor substitutions, but shooting down without\n> giving better alternatives is a poor way to reply ;-)\n\nI'm not interested in changing these words, but I'd like to prevent\nmaking things worse, so I'll leave the burden of providing better\nalternatives with those who actually want to pursue these changes.\n\n"},{"id":"369733","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1902202054260.41@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"50534","inReplyTo":"20190219172025.5577eb31@kitsune.suse.cz","subject":"Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2019-02-20T19:54:54Z","receivedAt":"2019-02-20T19:55:32Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Michal,\n\nOn Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Michal Suchánek wrote:\n\n> It is very poor reply to critique to say that better alternative should\n> be provided.\n\nWell, then we are at an impasse here.\n\nCiao,\nJohannes"}]}