I think that @msadowski hits it on the head. This discussion is more about cultural context than semantics and etymology. I’ve been holding off on commenting on this thread for a bit, but I’m going to dive in now, and then probably shut up. My own context in this is that I’m a native English speaker, I grew up in Scotland, but have lived in the US for the past 25 years, so I’m sort-of in the middle of the two contexts that @msadowski mentions. I’m a middle-aged, straight, married, white guy with kids, and I pretty much don’t fall into any diversity classes. I live in Oregon, which is about 87% white according to the census bureau.
For those of you who are not in or from the US, it’s hard to describe the discussion around this. Like many things that touch on politics here, it has become hyper-polarized, and there isn’t a middle ground. One is either racist or anti-racist; there is no longer a “not racist” option. You can agree with this or not, but that is the reality of the discussion these days. The main argument for this is that if you’re not actively working against racism then you’re complicit, and, since it’s such an entrenched thing, you’re contributing, albeit passively, to it’s continuance. Regardless of whether or not we agree with this, this is the framing. Open Robotics is based in the US, and this frames their public statements and policies.
The corollary of this is that, regardless of your position on this, you are going to get judged. If you agree, then you will be judged for performing lip service. If you disagree, you will be judged for not being anti-racist. This is, I think, because of the lack of a middle ground. @Katherine_Scott’s comment about working with people who are “kind and polite” could be taken to mean if you don’t rename, you’re not kind and polite. I don’t think that it was meant to read this way but, given the framing of this, there are only two sides, and you have to be in one. I also think this topics like this make it tempting to reach for offense and to employ specious arguments and righteous rage.
“let’s rename robotics”: Words matter, and the sarcasm in this which some people missed is an ironic example of that. The discussion in the US at the moment is less about the etymology of the word, and more about the contextual understanding of the word. Here’s another example: A speaker in a seminar I was in said “simulations are for pussies”. A number of people spoke up afterwards about the use of this word, we sent an email to the speaker, and they issued an apology. They screwed up, unintentionally offended people, owned the mistake, and changed their behavior. However, they could have pointed out that the etymology of the word stems from pusillanimous, and people should not be offended by it. It does (as far as I can tell), but the contextual understanding of the word is different.
“the change is pointless and a lot of work”: Personally, I see this in the same broad category as not using profanity in my comments or on tshirts. I’m from Scotland, and have a more comfortable relationship with harsh language than most. However, I recognize that some people are turned off by it’s use, so I don’t use it. A small change that costs me nothing, but makes the lives of those around me less bad. Yes, changing to “default” or “main” is a lot more work, and you have to decide if that work is worth it to you.
“is this the biggest lever”: No, it is not. Far from it. But, we don’t only pull the big levers. The big levers are hard to reach, and harder to pull. I’m a Stoic, and I tend to pull the levers I can reach.
“we should focus on ROS development”: I think that this is ROS development, in the same way the clear comments, PEP 8 compliance, and good documentation is ROS development. All of these things make it easier for people to get involved with ROS, and make it a welcoming ecosystem. There’s a cost to each of these things but the hope is that the time you spend on them will be offset by the time saved by having new developers join the community or by reducing the time that people need to spend on a given piece of code. If a potential contributor is considering two projects, one of which seems, to them, more welcoming, they’re more likely to join that community. I suspect that it doesn’t take many such people to offset the effort we’ll spend on this. Also, remember the framing here in the US: there are only two sides.
“we don’t get to pick who’s offended”: I think that this is true, but I also concede that it’s a slippery slope. In Scotland, I can call people things I can’t in the US, because people over here will get offended because of the cultural context. So, I don’t use that language here since, all things being equal, I’d rather not come across as offensive. Those words are pretty clear, but others, even the use of “master” are more nuanced. I’m not sure that there are any easy answers here.
“will it help / is this performative”: I honestly don’t know. I’m in the very corner of diversity space and I wonder if everything I do is performative. Will it help? I hope so, but who knows. I know that it won’t hurt, unless the mere discussion of it pulls people out of the community.
Finally, I think that everyone has to pick their place in this argument for themselves. I think a lot about equity, inclusion, and systematic bias in my day job, and I struggle with how to best address it. Personally, I’m going to make the change in all repos that I’m responsible for, since I think it’s the right move. It will not solve the problems of the world, and it’s not the only action I’m taking, but I think it’s pointing in the right direction.
