threads / discuss / 50534

Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))

Subject: Re: [RFE] Demilitarize Documentation (was RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure))

## tl;dr

18 messages between Feb 18, 2019 and Feb 20, 2019.

replies: 17people: 9as markdown or json

Randall S. Becker· Feb 18, 2019, 16:51 UTC · lore
On February 18, 2019 11:13, I wrote:
Show 39 quoted lines
> To: 'Senol Yazici' <sypsilon@googlemail.com>; git@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
> 
> On February 18, 2019 5:47, Senol Yazici
> > I just stumbled over following page
> >
> > https://git-scm.com/about/distributed
> >
> > and was wondering if it is possible to
> >
> > - demilitarise that “dictator/lieutenant” thing and
> > - de-religionise that “blessed” thing
> >
> > I did not had the feeling that git is “pro military”, or is against “non
> religious”
> > developers/users.
> 
> I think there is a point here. In some of my customers, we have replaced
> these terms with the following (the Repository is optional in the second two):
> 
> * Blessed: Repository of Record
> * Dictator: Committer [Repository]
> * Lieutenant: Contributor [Repository]
> 
> This seems more closely aligned with the real roles being applied to activities
> associated with the repositories involved.
> 
> Taking a lesson from other Open Source projects, Jenkins has deprecated
> Master/Slave in favour of Controller/Agent. This seems not only more
> acceptable to some, but in my view more descriptive. The terms on the page
> above do not actually make any descriptive sense to a newbie. And confusion
> could ensue from the dictionary definitions:
> 
> * Lieutenant: an aide or representative of another in the performance of
> duty : assistant (not what that repository is for)
> * Dictator: one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited
> governmental power (not how the git team behaves)
> * Blessed: honored in worship : hallowed; of or enjoying happiness (although
> I can see the happiness part of this one)
It 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.
Michal Suchánek· Feb 18, 2019, 17:26 UTC · re: Randall S. Becker · lore
Hello,

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:51:57 -0500 "Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com> wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines
> On February 18, 2019 11:13, I wrote:
> > To: 'Senol Yazici' <sypsilon@googlemail.com>; git@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
> > 
> > On February 18, 2019 5:47, Senol Yazici  
> > > I just stumbled over following page
> > >
> > > https://git-scm.com/about/distributed
> > >
> > > and was wondering if it is possible to
> > >
> > > - demilitarise that “dictator/lieutenant” thing and
> > > - de-religionise that “blessed” thing
> > >
> > > I did not had the feeling that git is “pro military”, or is against “non  
> > religious”  
> > > developers/users.

I have not. Using common terminology to describe a concept makes it easier to understand.

'dictator' is not military at all. 'lieutenant' is often used in military context but according to The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 the most common meaning is "An officer who supplies the place of a superior in his absence; a representative of, or substitute for, another in the performance of any duty."

Show 6 quoted lines
> > 
> > I think there is a point here. In some of my customers, we have
> > replaced these terms with the following (the Repository is optional
> > in the second two):
> > 
> > * Blessed: Repository of Record

I think 'Blessed' is way easier to understand than 'Repository of Record'. Also 'blessed' is not necessarily connected to religion. For example, you can get your parent's blessing even when they are not religious, whatever it's worth.

Show 9 quoted lines
> > * Dictator: Committer [Repository]
> > * Lieutenant: Contributor [Repository]
> > 
> > This seems more closely aligned with the real roles being applied to activities
> > associated with the repositories involved.
> > 
> > Taking a lesson from other Open Source projects, Jenkins has deprecated
> > Master/Slave in favour of Controller/Agent. This seems not only more
> > acceptable to some, but in my view more descriptive.

Of course, master/slave can have connotations with some not so nice historical episodes.

I think that to some 'agent' might be less acceptable because it might have connotation with some other not so nice historical episodes which are described with some literary license in the '1984' novel.

As far as descriptivity goes both terminologies are misleading in different ways. Only when you are aware that it has changed it makes things actually clearer.

Show 6 quoted lines
> The terms on the page
> > above do not actually make any descriptive sense to a newbie. And confusion
> > could ensue from the dictionary definitions:
> > 
> > * Lieutenant: an aide or representative of another in the performance of
> > duty : assistant (not what that repository is for)
I beg to differ. That's exactly what the repository is for.
> > * Dictator: one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited
> > governmental power (not how the git team behaves)

If you are the sole person with the right to change the 'blessed' or 'master' repository then this describes the role quite well.

Thanks
Michal
Junio C Hamano· Feb 18, 2019, 18:39 UTC · re: Randall S. Becker · lore
"Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com> writes:
Show 18 quoted lines
>> Taking a lesson from other Open Source projects, Jenkins has deprecated
>> Master/Slave in favour of Controller/Agent. This seems not only more
>> acceptable to some, but in my view more descriptive. The terms on the page
>> above do not actually make any descriptive sense to a newbie. And confusion
>> could ensue from the dictionary definitions:
>> 
>> * Lieutenant: an aide or representative of another in the performance of
>> duty : assistant (not what that repository is for)
>> * Dictator: one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited
>> governmental power (not how the git team behaves)
>> * Blessed: honored in worship : hallowed; of or enjoying happiness (although
>> I can see the happiness part of this one)
>
> It 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.

I personally do not feel these three words are so problematic to spend bandwidth discussing on here; it probably is partly because I am not a native speaker and am not too much disturbed by connotations they may make those who are more fluent with the language feel.

The page describing various ways a project can be structured uses the kernel project as one of the examples, and over there, at least "lieutenant" is a well understood term to describe those who feed Linus (because Linus does not scale otherwise). I do not know if Linus is called "dictator" there but I trust those who wrote that "distributed" page knew what the words commonly used in the example project they chose. Deviating from the words they use would make the example harder to understand.

For that matter, I do not know why borrowing vocabulary from any well understood area, be it military or religion, is a bad idea to begin with. I personally have no issues with people who worship deity of their own (or none). That probably is also due to where I come from, where we have 8 million of them ;-)

So, if the reason why some people feel "blessed" is a bad phrasing to use is because it came from a particilar religion and other religions have no such concept, I do not agree with such a feeling at all, as long as those who hear it all know what the speaker means by the word. I would have more problems if we pick a word rarely used that nobody would understand.

I _think_ that is what the distinction between "acceptable" vs "more descriptive" mentioned in the early part I quoted in this message talks about---I do not quite by "acceptable" part, but I care more about "more descriptive" part.

Thansk.
Senol Yazici· Feb 19, 2019, 08:02 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore
Dear all,

Thank you for the quick response and apologize my late reply (good morning from Europe).

I understand that well "established" concepts might make it easier grasping concepts.

My concerns towards using these particular expressions (dictator/lieutenant/blessed) are nevertheless motivated.

1. Dictator
Concern: "Bad" connotation.

I agree, dictator is not military, but it is not "not military at all", see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictator. Except of case 1 a (and 2, which is not applicable in this context), cases b and c are related to either "autocrat" or "fascist dictator". Both of these historical "figures" majorities abused their military power to "rule" in an oppresive way. Further, "googling" dictator does not give Linus as a result in (at least my) search (bubble). It gives the well known bad examples of dictators usually having abused or are abusing their powers in an oppressive/tyrannical way.

Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.
2. Lieutenant (somehow I manage to misspell this word most of the times)
Concern: Strong relation to military.

I also agree here, lieutenant is not military, again see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principal. The connotation here is also not as negative as it is with dictator. However, googling lieutenant results in mostly military figures.

Suggestion for substitution: Assistant or assistant integrator.
3. Blessed repository
Concern: Rather exclusive than inclusive.

I agree, blessed is not a bad phrasing. But if one is not attached/related to a religion in some way, one somehow feels left out. It is creating some troubles explaining this to the "curious young mind" (i.e. children) without having to mention religion at some point of the explanation. Why should one need to go there in a discussion of how "big projects" are dealt with? Of course, one could say "it is another word for approved" and neglect the origin of the word. What would then be left as a motivation to use this word at all, and not use approved?

The more I try to understand what "blessed" in a context of a repository wants to tell me about it's current state, the less I am understanding.

I think the state of the repository is something like "Approved by principal integrator" or "Principal integrator (PI) approved", thus...

Suggestion for substitution: PI-Approved repository

Words have their weight. In times where the entire world is accessible by the "click of a finger" it is becoming more and more important to be inclusive. Further, in a world where hundred of millions live in conditions ruled by dictators or military regimes _I_ care more about acceptable than "descriptive".

I am not sure if someone in a "warlike" situation will feel "included" finding these expressions when it is about software development projects!

Again thanks for your attention and participation in the discussion.

Best regards, Senol Yazici

Senol
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 19:39, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 58 quoted lines
>
> "Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com> writes:
>
> >> Taking a lesson from other Open Source projects, Jenkins has deprecated
> >> Master/Slave in favour of Controller/Agent. This seems not only more
> >> acceptable to some, but in my view more descriptive. The terms on the page
> >> above do not actually make any descriptive sense to a newbie. And confusion
> >> could ensue from the dictionary definitions:
> >>
> >> * Lieutenant: an aide or representative of another in the performance of
> >> duty : assistant (not what that repository is for)
> >> * Dictator: one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited
> >> governmental power (not how the git team behaves)
> >> * Blessed: honored in worship : hallowed; of or enjoying happiness (although
> >> I can see the happiness part of this one)
> >
> > It 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.
>
> I personally do not feel these three words are so problematic to
> spend bandwidth discussing on here; it probably is partly because I
> am not a native speaker and am not too much disturbed by connotations
> they may make those who are more fluent with the language feel.
>
> The page describing various ways a project can be structured uses
> the kernel project as one of the examples, and over there, at least
> "lieutenant" is a well understood term to describe those who feed
> Linus (because Linus does not scale otherwise).  I do not know if
> Linus is called "dictator" there but I trust those who wrote that
> "distributed" page knew what the words commonly used in the example
> project they chose.  Deviating from the words they use would make
> the example harder to understand.
>
> For that matter, I do not know why borrowing vocabulary from any
> well understood area, be it military or religion, is a bad idea to
> begin with.  I personally have no issues with people who worship
> deity of their own (or none). That probably is also due to where I
> come from, where we have 8 million of them ;-)
>
> So, if the reason why some people feel "blessed" is a bad phrasing
> to use is because it came from a particilar religion and other
> religions have no such concept, I do not agree with such a feeling
> at all, as long as those who hear it all know what the speaker means
> by the word.  I would have more problems if we pick a word rarely
> used that nobody would understand.
>
> I _think_ that is what the distinction between "acceptable" vs "more
> descriptive" mentioned in the early part I quoted in this message
> talks about---I do not quite by "acceptable" part, but I care more
> about "more descriptive" part.
>
> Thansk.
>
>
>
Michal Suchánek· Feb 19, 2019, 09:39 UTC · re: Senol Yazici · lore

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:02:43 +0100 Senol Yazici <sypsilon@googlemail.com> wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines
> Dear all,
> 
> Thank you for the quick response and apologize my late reply (good
> morning from Europe).
> 
> I understand that well "established" concepts might make it easier
> grasping concepts.
> 
> My concerns towards using these particular expressions
> (dictator/lieutenant/blessed) are nevertheless motivated.
> 
> 1. Dictator
> Concern: "Bad" connotation.
> 
> I agree, dictator is not military, but it is not "not military at
> all", see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictator.
> Except of case 1 a (and 2, which is not applicable in this context),
> cases b and c are related to either "autocrat" or "fascist dictator".
> Both of these historical "figures" majorities abused their military
> power to "rule" in an oppresive way.
> Further, "googling" dictator does not give Linus as a result in (at
> least my) search (bubble).
> It gives the well known bad examples of dictators usually having
> abused or are abusing their powers in an oppressive/tyrannical way.

You could say that serves as a reminder that authority comes with responsibility ;-)

Show 12 quoted lines
> 
> Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.
> 
> 2. Lieutenant (somehow I manage to misspell this word most of the times)
> Concern: Strong relation to military.
> 
> I also agree here, lieutenant is not military, again see
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principal.
> The connotation here is also not as negative as it is with dictator.
> However, googling lieutenant results in mostly military figures.
> 
> Suggestion for substitution: Assistant or assistant integrator.

So now the terms sound a lot like a corporate lingo. Is it now turn for enthusiasts and entrepreneurs to feel excluded because git is meant only for corporations, and for people who had bad experience as corporate employees to feel offended?

Show 27 quoted lines
> 
> 3. Blessed repository
> Concern: Rather exclusive than inclusive.
> 
> I agree, blessed is not a bad phrasing. But if one is not
> attached/related to a religion in some way, one somehow feels left
> out.
> It is creating some troubles explaining this to the "curious young
> mind" (i.e. children) without having to mention religion at some point
> of the explanation.
> Why should one need to go there in a discussion of how "big projects"
> are dealt with?
> Of course, one could say "it is another word for approved" and neglect
> the origin of the word.
> What would then be left as a motivation to use this word at all, and
> not use approved?
> 
> The more I try to understand what "blessed" in a context of a
> repository wants to tell me about it's current state, the less I am
> understanding.
> 
> I think the state of the repository is something like "Approved by
> principal integrator" or "Principal integrator (PI) approved", thus...
> 
> Suggestion for substitution: PI-Approved repository
> 
> Words have their weight.

The problem is they all have weight, and different words have different weights for different people.

Show 5 quoted lines
> In times where the entire world is accessible by the "click of a
> finger" it is becoming more and more important to be inclusive.
> Further, in a world where hundred of millions live in conditions ruled
> by dictators or military regimes _I_ care more about acceptable than
> "descriptive".

I would like to point out that dictators rarely call themselves 'dictator' so whatever negative connotations people living in actual dictatorships are most likely connected with the person of the dictator or the title the dictator chose for themselves and not the actual word 'dictator'.

Also once you go down this route you will find that most words have some negative connotation to some people. If you manage to find a few purely neutral words and write your documentation with them people will likely learn to hate them over time because they will read them again and again in vague politically correct documentation that does not describe what it is supposed to document in fear of offending somebody.

At that point you can just delete the page from the documentation and be done with it.

> 
> I am not sure if someone in a "warlike" situation will feel "included"
> finding these expressions when it is about software development
> projects!

I don't feel included in projects where the documentation is unintelligible for use of vague and non-descriptitve words.

Thanks
Michal
Johannes Schindelin· Feb 19, 2019, 14:47 UTC · re: Michal Suchánek · lore
Hi Michal,
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Michal Suchánek wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:02:43 +0100
> Senol Yazici <sypsilon@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Suggestion for substitution: Assistant or assistant integrator.
> 
> So now the terms sound a lot like a corporate lingo. Is it now turn for
> enthusiasts and entrepreneurs to feel excluded because git is meant
> only for corporations, and for people who had bad experience as
> corporate employees to feel offended?

The concern that was raised is a valid one. Words can do real harm, and we should try not to keep perpetrating that same harm. We still have language in our very README that puts off some people, for no good reason whatsoever.

I find your comments quite offensive, as they seem to all try to downplay the importance of words, when all you could say is that *you* have the insane luck of being in a time and place where *you personally* are not affected. But to belittle others who do not share that privilege is quite out of line.

So let's give voice to those who have kind words, and rest our combative language.

In other words, I welcome Senol's contribution, and hope that it will cumulate in a Pull Request that fixes the website.

Ciao, Johannes

Michal Suchánek· Feb 19, 2019, 16:28 UTC · re: Johannes Schindelin · lore

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 15:47:08 +0100 (STD) Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines
> Hi Michal,
> 
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:02:43 +0100
> > Senol Yazici <sypsilon@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Suggestion for substitution: Assistant or assistant integrator.  
> > 
> > So now the terms sound a lot like a corporate lingo. Is it now turn for
> > enthusiasts and entrepreneurs to feel excluded because git is meant
> > only for corporations, and for people who had bad experience as
> > corporate employees to feel offended?  
> 
> The concern that was raised is a valid one. Words can do real harm, and we
> should try not to keep perpetrating that same harm. We still have language
> in our very README that puts off some people, for no good reason
> whatsoever.
> 
> I find your comments quite offensive, as they seem to all try to downplay
> the importance of words, when all you could say is that *you* have the
> insane luck of being in a time and place where *you personally* are not
> affected. But to belittle others who do not share that privilege is quite
> out of line.

Then please stick to your advice and do not belittle *my* concerns either. 

> 
> So let's give voice to those who have kind words, and rest our combative
> language.
Please do, thank you very much.
> 
> In other words, I welcome Senol's contribution, and hope that it will
> cumulate in a Pull Request that fixes the website.

And so long as it is a fix that makes the documentation clear rather than trading one potentially offensive term for another also potentially offensive and even less descriptive I welcome it as well.

Thanks
Michal
SZEDER Gábor· Feb 19, 2019, 10:01 UTC · re: Senol Yazici · lore
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 09:02:43AM +0100, Senol Yazici wrote:
> 1. Dictator
> Concern: "Bad" connotation.
"Benevolent dictator" is a well-established term in open source
projects, and it has an inherently good connotation.
 
> Further, "googling" dictator does not give Linus as a result in (at
> least my) search (bubble).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life
> Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.
These are poor substitutions.
Senol Yazici· Feb 19, 2019, 11:00 UTC · re: SZEDER Gábor · lore
Hi Gabor,
thanks for the constructive feedback.
Hi Michal,
- I might be an enthusiast but i am definitively not offended. :D
- I am wondering for whom dictator has a positive weight... no matter
who calls them dictator! ;)
- Which negative connotation do you have with "principal" or
"integrator" or "approved"? :)
- Does a documentation sounds sexier if its "rebellion" than "_not_
vague politically correct"?
- I did not "understand" "dictator" "lieutenant" nor "blessed".
- I think that words form the world we live in, deliberate choice of
"bad" connotation and exclusive expressions form an adequate world.
Thanks for the insight. :)

Cheers, Senol

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 11:01, SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 09:02:43AM +0100, Senol Yazici wrote:
> > 1. Dictator
> > Concern: "Bad" connotation.
>
> "Benevolent dictator" is a well-established term in open source
> projects, and it has an inherently good connotation.
>
> > Further, "googling" dictator does not give Linus as a result in (at
> > least my) search (bubble).
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life
>
> > Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.
>
> These are poor substitutions.
>
Johannes Schindelin· Feb 19, 2019, 14:58 UTC · re: SZEDER Gábor · lore
Hi Gábor,
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 09:02:43AM +0100, Senol Yazici wrote:
> > 1. Dictator
> > Concern: "Bad" connotation.
> 
> "Benevolent dictator" is a well-established term in open source
> projects, and it has an inherently good connotation.

It is a well-established term, alright. Does it have an inherently good connotation? No, absolutely not. Every time anybody calls me the BDFL of Git for Windows, it annoys me, to say the least.

And yes, when I pull out my generous self, I can give you that the *intention* was funny. But to some, it is not funny at all.

Besides, in our field we had pretty established terminology for a long time. It was the *architect* who had the final say over what goes in and what stays out. And the respective team leaders were responsible for respective areas of the code, trusted by the architect.

Show 8 quoted lines
> > Further, "googling" dictator does not give Linus as a result in (at
> > least my) search (bubble).
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life
> 
> > Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.
> 
> These are poor substitutions.

I agree that those are poor substitutions, but shooting down without giving better alternatives is a poor way to reply ;-)

Ciao, Dscho

Michal Suchánek· Feb 19, 2019, 16:20 UTC · re: Johannes Schindelin · lore

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 15:58:00 +0100 (STD) Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines
> Hi Gábor,
> 
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 09:02:43AM +0100, Senol Yazici wrote:  
> > > 1. Dictator
> > > Concern: "Bad" connotation.  
> > 
> > "Benevolent dictator" is a well-established term in open source
> > projects, and it has an inherently good connotation.  
> 
> It is a well-established term, alright. Does it have an inherently good
> connotation? No, absolutely not. Every time anybody calls me the BDFL of
> Git for Windows, it annoys me, to say the least.
> 
> And yes, when I pull out my generous self, I can give you that the
> *intention* was funny. But to some, it is not funny at all.
> 
> Besides, in our field we had pretty established terminology for a long
> time. It was the *architect* who had the final say over what goes in and
> what stays out. And the respective team leaders were responsible for
> respective areas of the code, trusted by the architect.

Established to some perhaps. However, it is rarely the architect merging to the master repository. Architect and team leaders also suggests corporate structure. Is git for corporate users only just as the previous suggested that it is militaristic?

Show 12 quoted lines
> 
> > > Further, "googling" dictator does not give Linus as a result in (at
> > > least my) search (bubble).  
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life
> >   
> > > Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.  
> > 
> > These are poor substitutions.  
> 
> I agree that those are poor substitutions, but shooting down without
> giving better alternatives is a poor way to reply ;-)
No, not at all.

It is very poor reply to critique to say that better alternative should be provided. The solution stays poor even if you don't have a better one readily available.

Thanks
Michal
Philip Oakley· Feb 19, 2019, 20:16 UTC · re: Johannes Schindelin · lore
Hi all,
On 19/02/2019 14:58, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Show 32 quoted lines
> Hi Gábor,
>
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 09:02:43AM +0100, Senol Yazici wrote:
>>> 1. Dictator
>>> Concern: "Bad" connotation.
>> "Benevolent dictator" is a well-established term in open source
>> projects, and it has an inherently good connotation.
> It is a well-established term, alright. Does it have an inherently good
> connotation? No, absolutely not. Every time anybody calls me the BDFL of
> Git for Windows, it annoys me, to say the least.
>
> And yes, when I pull out my generous self, I can give you that the
> *intention* was funny. But to some, it is not funny at all.
>
> Besides, in our field we had pretty established terminology for a long
> time. It was the *architect* who had the final say over what goes in and
> what stays out. And the respective team leaders were responsible for
> respective areas of the code, trusted by the architect.
>
>>> Further, "googling" dictator does not give Linus as a result in (at
>>> least my) search (bubble).
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life
>>
>>> Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.
>> These are poor substitutions.
> I agree that those are poor substitutions, but shooting down without
> giving better alternatives is a poor way to reply ;-)
>
> Ciao,
> Dscho

I tend to agree that the 'Dictator' perspective is probably a pretty poor choice in modern times, while the other (Lieutenant, Blessed, etc.) word choices are now considered (in much of the millennial society) to be old fashioned, or worse.

However I do caution that we can't be fair all the time. There are a range of impossibility theorems [1,2] regarding making things fair.

Ultimately some one (The Maintainer) must make the discriminatory decision as to what to accept, what to choose, or  to reject, or select their own preference.

A probably bigger problem is actually the limited number of actual workflows styles that are recorded (and hence shortage of words for them). For example: patches vs PRs; review process style; even a term for the users 'backup' repo (on GitHub, GitLab, etc) and how it should operate. The mental models here can be hard.

Philip

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIXIuYdnyyk Tutorial: 21 fairness definitions and their politics, Published on Mar 1, 2018

[2] Arvind Narayanan: Associate professor of computer science at Princeton <https://www.youtube.com/user/33BitsOfEntropy>

SZEDER Gábor· Feb 20, 2019, 11:17 UTC · re: Johannes Schindelin · lore
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 03:58:00PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 09:02:43AM +0100, Senol Yazici wrote:
> > > 1. Dictator
> > > Concern: "Bad" connotation.
> > 
> > "Benevolent dictator" is a well-established term in open source
> > projects, and it has an inherently good connotation.
> 
> It is a well-established term, alright. Does it have an inherently good
> connotation? No, absolutely not. Every time anybody calls me the BDFL of
> Git for Windows, it annoys me, to say the least.

I would consider this an honour, but I'm not in danger of being labelled as such.

Show 6 quoted lines
> > > Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.
> > 
> > These are poor substitutions.
> 
> I agree that those are poor substitutions, but shooting down without
> giving better alternatives is a poor way to reply ;-)

I'm not interested in changing these words, but I'd like to prevent making things worse, so I'll leave the burden of providing better alternatives with those who actually want to pursue these changes.

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason· Feb 19, 2019, 11:19 UTC · re: Senol Yazici · lore
On Tue, Feb 19 2019, Senol Yazici wrote:
Show 72 quoted lines
> Thank you for the quick response and apologize my late reply (good
> morning from Europe).
>
> I understand that well "established" concepts might make it easier
> grasping concepts.
>
> My concerns towards using these particular expressions
> (dictator/lieutenant/blessed) are nevertheless motivated.
>
> 1. Dictator
> Concern: "Bad" connotation.
>
> I agree, dictator is not military, but it is not "not military at
> all", see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictator.
> Except of case 1 a (and 2, which is not applicable in this context),
> cases b and c are related to either "autocrat" or "fascist dictator".
> Both of these historical "figures" majorities abused their military
> power to "rule" in an oppresive way.
> Further, "googling" dictator does not give Linus as a result in (at
> least my) search (bubble).
> It gives the well known bad examples of dictators usually having
> abused or are abusing their powers in an oppressive/tyrannical way.
>
> Suggestion for substitution: Principal or principal integrator.
>
> 2. Lieutenant (somehow I manage to misspell this word most of the times)
> Concern: Strong relation to military.
>
> I also agree here, lieutenant is not military, again see
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principal.
> The connotation here is also not as negative as it is with dictator.
> However, googling lieutenant results in mostly military figures.
>
> Suggestion for substitution: Assistant or assistant integrator.
>
> 3. Blessed repository
> Concern: Rather exclusive than inclusive.
>
> I agree, blessed is not a bad phrasing. But if one is not
> attached/related to a religion in some way, one somehow feels left
> out.
> It is creating some troubles explaining this to the "curious young
> mind" (i.e. children) without having to mention religion at some point
> of the explanation.
> Why should one need to go there in a discussion of how "big projects"
> are dealt with?
> Of course, one could say "it is another word for approved" and neglect
> the origin of the word.
> What would then be left as a motivation to use this word at all, and
> not use approved?
>
> The more I try to understand what "blessed" in a context of a
> repository wants to tell me about it's current state, the less I am
> understanding.
>
> I think the state of the repository is something like "Approved by
> principal integrator" or "Principal integrator (PI) approved", thus...
>
> Suggestion for substitution: PI-Approved repository
>
> Words have their weight.
> In times where the entire world is accessible by the "click of a
> finger" it is becoming more and more important to be inclusive.
> Further, in a world where hundred of millions live in conditions ruled
> by dictators or military regimes _I_ care more about acceptable than
> "descriptive".
>
> I am not sure if someone in a "warlike" situation will feel "included"
> finding these expressions when it is about software development
> projects!
>
> Again thanks for your attention and participation in the discussion.
Two things:
 1) Whatever anyone's abstract position on the wording of our
    documentation, either the one stored in git.git or at
    https://github.com/git/git-scm.com there's only so much a
    theoretical discussion like this can get us.
    If you're willing to pursue this further I think it's best if that's
    done in the form of patches to either repositories, either sent here
    on-list (see Documentation/SubmittingPatches) or as a PR to
    https://github.com/git/git-scm.com
 2) Any piece of software or technical tool is going to unavoidably need
    to use some amount of jargon, or words that are lifted from a more
    general vocabulary and intended to be understood in context.
    Thus, when we talk about e.g. "trees" in git, it's understood that
    we're talking about something in the context of this software
    project, trying to go by the first Google result of "tree" isn't
    going to get you anywhere.

I for one thing those git-scm docs could be changed to eliminate those words for reasons entirely unrelated to them somehow being religious or militaristic. Specifically:

 * "blessed" is introduced in quotes and used twice. I think it would be
   clearer to use "canonical" for what it's describing.
 * The docs already use "integration manager" and then introduce
   "dictator" as a synonym in the context of explaining the workflow of
   the kernel.
   They could instead use "main integrator" or something, since the
   point of the example is to explain how git can be used to manage
   distributed repositories that are integrated in a hierarchical
   manner.
   Making assumptions about how much power the "main integrator" has to
   approve/reject changes is irrelevant to that explanation.
   E.g. the kernel could also decide to make the "main integrator" some
   purely automated process that always approves changes from
   lieutenants and the hierarchical example would be just as true.
Michal Suchánek· Feb 19, 2019, 13:33 UTC · re: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason · lore

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:19:51 +0100 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 19 2019, Senol Yazici wrote:
>
Show 24 quoted lines
>  2) Any piece of software or technical tool is going to unavoidably need
>     to use some amount of jargon, or words that are lifted from a more
>     general vocabulary and intended to be understood in context.
> 
>     Thus, when we talk about e.g. "trees" in git, it's understood that
>     we're talking about something in the context of this software
>     project, trying to go by the first Google result of "tree" isn't
>     going to get you anywhere.
> 
> I for one thing those git-scm docs could be changed to eliminate those
> words for reasons entirely unrelated to them somehow being religious or
> militaristic. Specifically:
> 
>  * "blessed" is introduced in quotes and used twice. I think it would be
>    clearer to use "canonical" for what it's describing.
> 
>  * The docs already use "integration manager" and then introduce
>    "dictator" as a synonym in the context of explaining the workflow of
>    the kernel.
> 
>    They could instead use "main integrator" or something, since the
>    point of the example is to explain how git can be used to manage
>    distributed repositories that are integrated in a hierarchical
>    manner.
And that is a good reason to change the wording for once.
Thanks
Michal
Christian Couder· Feb 19, 2019, 13:52 UTC · re: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason · lore

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:23 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines
>
> Two things:
>
>  1) Whatever anyone's abstract position on the wording of our
>     documentation, either the one stored in git.git or at
>     https://github.com/git/git-scm.com there's only so much a
>     theoretical discussion like this can get us.
>
>     If you're willing to pursue this further I think it's best if that's
>     done in the form of patches to either repositories, either sent here
>     on-list (see Documentation/SubmittingPatches) or as a PR to
>     https://github.com/git/git-scm.com
I agree.
Show 12 quoted lines
>  2) Any piece of software or technical tool is going to unavoidably need
>     to use some amount of jargon, or words that are lifted from a more
>     general vocabulary and intended to be understood in context.
>
>     Thus, when we talk about e.g. "trees" in git, it's understood that
>     we're talking about something in the context of this software
>     project, trying to go by the first Google result of "tree" isn't
>     going to get you anywhere.
>
> I for one thing those git-scm docs could be changed to eliminate those
> words for reasons entirely unrelated to them somehow being religious or
> militaristic.
I agree that it would be a much better outcome of this discussion.
Show 8 quoted lines
>  * The docs already use "integration manager" and then introduce
>    "dictator" as a synonym in the context of explaining the workflow of
>    the kernel.
>
>    They could instead use "main integrator" or something, since the
>    point of the example is to explain how git can be used to manage
>    distributed repositories that are integrated in a hierarchical
>    manner.

I would suggest considering "maintainer" or "main maintainer" or "top level maintainer", as I think "maintainer" is one of the most common word used for the role in the Linux kernel and Git communities. By the way it's often used in expressions like "sub-system maintainer", which maybe could be used to replace "lieutenant".

(In Git Rev News I think I have always used "the Git maintainer" to talk about Junio for example.)

Show 6 quoted lines
>    Making assumptions about how much power the "main integrator" has to
>    approve/reject changes is irrelevant to that explanation.
>
>    E.g. the kernel could also decide to make the "main integrator" some
>    purely automated process that always approves changes from
>    lieutenants and the hierarchical example would be just as true.

Thanks for your insight on this, Christian.

Michal Suchánek· Feb 19, 2019, 13:58 UTC · re: Christian Couder · lore

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:52:40 +0100 Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 47 quoted lines
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:23 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
> <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Two things:
> >
> >  1) Whatever anyone's abstract position on the wording of our
> >     documentation, either the one stored in git.git or at
> >     https://github.com/git/git-scm.com there's only so much a
> >     theoretical discussion like this can get us.
> >
> >     If you're willing to pursue this further I think it's best if that's
> >     done in the form of patches to either repositories, either sent here
> >     on-list (see Documentation/SubmittingPatches) or as a PR to
> >     https://github.com/git/git-scm.com  
> 
> I agree.
> 
> >  2) Any piece of software or technical tool is going to unavoidably need
> >     to use some amount of jargon, or words that are lifted from a more
> >     general vocabulary and intended to be understood in context.
> >
> >     Thus, when we talk about e.g. "trees" in git, it's understood that
> >     we're talking about something in the context of this software
> >     project, trying to go by the first Google result of "tree" isn't
> >     going to get you anywhere.
> >
> > I for one thing those git-scm docs could be changed to eliminate those
> > words for reasons entirely unrelated to them somehow being religious or
> > militaristic.  
> 
> I agree that it would be a much better outcome of this discussion.
> 
> >  * The docs already use "integration manager" and then introduce
> >    "dictator" as a synonym in the context of explaining the workflow of
> >    the kernel.
> >
> >    They could instead use "main integrator" or something, since the
> >    point of the example is to explain how git can be used to manage
> >    distributed repositories that are integrated in a hierarchical
> >    manner.  
> 
> I would suggest considering "maintainer" or "main maintainer" or "top
> level maintainer", as I think "maintainer" is one of the most common
> word used for the role in the Linux kernel and Git communities. By the
> way it's often used in expressions like "sub-system maintainer", which
> maybe could be used to replace "lieutenant".
>

Which suggests certain way the responsibility is divided in the project and limits the thinking of the people reading the documentations.

While for many projects it is sensible to divide the project into subsystems and have subsystem maintainers for some it is not and they need different way to divide the work.

For some projects the role of maintainer and integrator is fulfilled by the same person and for some it might be not.

Thanks
Michal

← back to recent threads