Comment on Servo vs Ladybird.
bjorney@lemmy.ca 3 weeks agoIf I was the maintainer, I too would probably reject the PR because it didn’t remove the gender entirely.
Cool, but that isn’t what happened here. The PR was closed immediately because the maintainer considered using gender neutral pronouns “personal politics” - he had ample opportunity to clarify his stance, or simply comment ‘resubmit in passive voice’, but he didn’t. Clearly the problem wasn’t the active voice, it was the summary of the change, because when that exact same PR was re-submitted much later with a commit message of ‘Fix some minor ESL grammar issues’, it was accepted with no discussion
As an aside, I absolutely disagree with the use of passive voice. It’s more verbose, and harder for the reader to comprehend. It’s why every style guide (APA, Chicago, IEEE, etc) recommends sticking to active voice, especially in the context of ‘doing things’.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
In this case, yes. Context matters a lot here, and the context is that this didn’t refer to any human user, but a system user.
What’s the gender of
root? The question doesn’t make sense, becauserootisn’t alive, it’s a technical concept. What gender is your PC? A directory? It’s the same idea, it doesn’t make sense.However, switching it from one pronoun to another is politically motivated in the sense that it’s virtue signaling a certain brand of inclusiveness. The only gender that could make sense is whatever is used most frequently, e.g. w/ ships we use “she/her” for whatever reason, despite gender having absolutely no reason to exist. If a gender is used, I’ve seen the masculine, but again, that’s incredibly rare because any technical writer worth their salt would avoid the use of genders altogether because it doesn’t make sense to use a gender in that context.
And why would he need to clarify anything? The simplest explanation is that this person is knee-jerk reacting to pronouns, and trying to change something that doesn’t matter at all because they see pronoun and think “must be gender neutral.” If they took a couple seconds to think, they would’ve realized that gender doesn’t matter at all here. It’s a useless change, and the reviewer shouldn’t spend any time on it at all.
I’ve rejected tons of minor changes (e.g. whitespace changes) because it seemed the user was just looking to get their name in the commit log to build a resume or something. That’s a waste of everyone’s time, and this change looks no different.
Yeah, that makes sense for most things, but for technical writing, the most important thing is clarity. Throwing a gender where it doesn’t belong is a distraction, and using active voice where it doesn’t belong is as well.
Check out The Elements of Nonsexist Usage: A Guide to Inclusive Spoken and Written English, in Chapter 4 the author recommends exactly what I’ve outlined here: use “the user” instead of “he/she.” Here’s as Stack Exchange discussion about just that:
If the PR removed gender entirely, it would’ve had a better change of being considered. It’s still a largely worthless PR though, unless it’s fixing something tangible in the documentation.
bjorney@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
You seem content to entirely gloss over the issue, which isn’t the pros/cons of a particular writing style, it’s that the maintainer could have said ANY of the things you said, but he didn’t
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I can’t speak for the maintainer. What I can say is that FOSS maintainers tend to not like putting up with noise.
This is the extent of what they said:
Then the github issue got brigaded. Why are there hundreds of reactions to a one-sentence response to a one-word change that doesn’t matter at all? The fact that we’re even having this discussion is crazy imo.
It literally does not matter, and I’d prefer their developers write code than engage in a culture war.