Linux
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
view the rest of the comments
My first impression was the lead developer calling a PR for gender neutral pronouns in the documentation "personal politics". Pardon me if I'm still underwhelmed, no matter the state of the project.
Guess they have more important matter to attend.
Some made a pull request with all the changes made already. The issue that the PR addressed was the excessive use of he/him in the docs when referring to developers (aka the person reading the docs). Contributors expressed that they didnt think using male only pronouns in the docs made much sense when referring to any developer reading the docs. This wasn't some entitled person trying to force the ladybird dev to rewrite the docs, all they needed to do was merge the changes.
I think a bit more context could help here. What if those devs are male and prefer he/him? Should those pronouns be changed?
In this scenario, I think the pronouns should be changed regardless of the gender of the devs. Here’s a screenshot of the suggested changes, which are quite minimal. The reason why I think this should be changed is because this is in the build instructions for a project that many devs are needed. Hence, they should at least be open to discussion rather than shutting it off completely. And honestly, this is a small change. Their reaction to this made it more political than the commit itself, and honestly the commit was not political in my mind. Their reaction also demonstrated how they respond to contributions, and an ambitious project like this will need a lot of contributors. If their leadership keeps this up, it is very off-putting for people to collaborate with them.
I'm usually in the camp that people should just speak as they like, but using they is just a really natural thing and non invasive in the English language. That's a change that makes sense. They in this position might also refer to an organization, it Abstracts the entity using the thing away, which makes sense.