----- Forwarded message from Zenaan <github.com@freedbms.net> ----- From: Zenaan To: openzfs/zfs <reply+AAA7QRBF67OKNB3S56PUWTV5ENR7REVBNHHCODTXHQ@reply.github.com> Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:40:14 +1000 Subject: Re: [openzfs/zfs] mentions to 'child gangs' in the source (#10554) On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 05:06:16PM -0700, misterbigstuff wrote:

wanted to ask people to just remain on-topic for finding a new term to describe gang blocks, if you want to debate the philosophy of it, do so somewhere else.

(And yet, you used the _more_ triggering term "child gangs" in your subject line: this is disingenuous by you, and belies that within you is a hidden agenda, and an intention which you fail to disclose to us.) If the leadership falls for this continued attack on rationality, for "the benefit of people's feelings", that will be a sad indictment against that leadership. To put feelings above facts, is to raise into authority he, or she, who brings those purported "feelings" to the table as a relevant and significant issue (in this case, supposedly, "in relation to a hypothetical developer's lack of contributions due to their feelings). Matthew Ahrens, for whatever reasons, is taking the submission/ politically "comfortable" approach of appeasement and submission, bowing low and proferring to offer up supplication in the form of "working together" and "communicating fruitfully", which is a little sad in the face of the inherently divisive language and intentions beinw either wittingly or unwittingly blought to this community. Matthew I put to you this and mak my words: this is a pure power play, and nothing else. Be deceived at peril. Your statement in the other thread:

Some people (myself included) feel that there is a connection, however unintended, between "whitelist/blacklist" and implicit bias / systemic racism.

is misguided, your belief is misguided. The reason that your opinion is misguided is that there is a connection between all language, and all problems. Indeed, there is an inherent connection between our very existence, and all problems in the world, and this is inescapable. Neutering our language is never the appropriate solution to any problem. Indeed, neutering the language we use, is not only never an appropriate solution, in fact it always, over the medium to long term, exacerbates and energizes, the very problems that are proclaimed as 'reduced' by the neutering of our language. The reason(s) that neutering our language in any way, exacerbates the problems supposedly 'reduced' by such language neutering, include: - All words have roots in our deep past. - NO amount of language neutering is EVER accepted as sufficient to remedy "the problem" (whatever problem is presented); as there are always more words which have problems, including all words used to replace the "old" wolds, since it is the "trigger" of being reminded of the very concept (not the word itself) which is the (implied/ purported) problem. - Those who proclaim "feelings" as the ground for any such change, can and do change those feelings over time, and correspondingly increase their demands over time. - There are hidden intentions behind all attempts to control language, which most fail to witness, and which few can even properly name. - All concepts still exist, regardless of which word(s) are used to name that concept at any point in history. - The hidden intentions behind all attemps to control our language, are usually unseen until much community and other damage has been done. - Mental illness ought never be a foundation on which technical projects make technical decisions. - Basing any technical decision on any "equality" foundation, rather than on technical and competance considerations, damages the product, and damages the community. - Using the limited resources of a volunteer technical project, to handle the issues of mentally ill people, is perhaps unwise. Unseen virtue signalling, especially towards mentally ill people, is dangerous. @ahrens , I suggest you carefully consider the following questions, and possibly ask them of pourself whilst you're at it: I suggest the following questions be put to any and all persons who come to the OpenZFS/ZoL projects proclaiming to want "inclusiveness" whilst bringing divisive issues: - Given your statement that you are triggered emotionally by plain words which are used in this specific and highly technical context, why do you say that you do NOT need professional help? - Why do you say that this project, which is both volunteer AND with very limited resources, should spend time making changes to accommodate you, when you appear to require professional help? - Have you ever had a mental illness? - Have you ever been diagnosed with a mental illness? - If you have never been diagnosed with a mental illness, do you consider that you may need professional help, either by a psychiatrist, or a psychologist, or by a counsellor? ----- End forwarded message ----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- And a message from the github thread https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/10458 GregorKopka commented on Jul 8 The following comment on slashdot.org nicely describes my view on the situation:

I strongly suspect the people who are pushing for these things fall into two camps. The first camp are people who genuinely want to control the language, and by proxy, thought. These are very dangerous people and should be resisted at all times. The second camp are people who genuinely want to do something so they can be a part of this current trend and feel like they are participating in a meaningful way. These are ordinary decent people, but are certainly influenced by the bluster and actions of the first camp.

Here's the thing, though. If you're in the second camp, your actions will not save you from the first camp. The authoritarians in the first camp are fundamentally about control, and if you stand in their way, your past actions will mean nothing. Anything less than complete subservience to whatever ideology is currently in vogue in the first camp, is treated as a viral attack and is stamped out with extreme prejudice. Your past capitulation will not serve you in the future.

Nobody--at least nobody with a lick of sense or proportion--actually thinks that changing "master/slave" to something else will accomplish anything of substance or real value. It's nothing more than a publicity stunt to demonstrate that you are not like those people over there, the racists. It's a signal of your adherence to the new narrative, nothing more. The authoritarians in the first camp will acknowledge your signal, and they now know that later you will be more likely to accept the next click on the ratchet. Make no mistake, however; when they ratchet it too far for you, nothing you did in the past will save you.

It's the behavior of cults, and used to great effect at controlling behavior. What's surprising is how many tech people are susceptible to it.

I ask we put this to rest and instead deal with the important matters. Like figuring out how not to piss off existing contributors hard enough for them to make github delete everything they ever did, removing a fair part of the usability of the issue tracker in the process (which as far as I understood it is what has happened to @kpande). Or how to move to (preferably self-hosted) platforms that make such destructive things impossible (or at least able to recover from, would the boxes backing this issue tracker run ZFS and be under control of OpenZFS then what's lost could be recovered from snapshots - it's IMHO a sad joke that this isn't the case) while not taking the data belonging to the OpenZFS project (or contributors to it) hostage out of greed (slack). Please no more virtue signaling in the hopes of maybe attracting new contributors. Contributors which might very well not exist in the first place as the amount of humans interested and able in the intersection of C, Kernel and Filesystem programming (plus living in a situation that allows for free time to actually spend on that) is somewhat limited. Contributors which, from being able to wield logic (which enables them to program in the first place), will likely have no mental problems at all with the distinction between master/slave describing relations between parts of machinery vs. the same words describing humans committing crimes against humanity. TL;DR: Please stop destroying the meaning of language, in case you need a further argument about this please consult the late Mr. Carlin, for no good reason but concentrate on what is actually important instead.