Discussion on potential offensive term "minority"

[Karthikeyan Govindaraj]

Hi Folx-

With regard to the process[1], we have discussed, I am writing this email to initiate the discussion and possible async-consensus to arrive at a conclusion on the below term.

Potential Offensive Term:

minority

Possible alternatives: [2]

- very few

- underrepresented

Findings: [3]

Hound: https://cs.k8s.io/?q=minority&i=fosho&files=&repos=

GH Search: https://github.com/search?q=org%3Akubernetes+%22minority%22&type=issues

---

Many Thanks,

Karthik

Karthikeyan Govindaraj (he/him)

DevOps Architect | OSS Enthusiast | Blogger

Know Me! | @gkarthics

[1] The process of initiating the email thread first and file under issues.

[2] The possible alternatives are not limited to this list. Please add any additional terminologies as well while we discuss them.

[3] Hound search is only for Codebase, GitHub search included the issues, PRs, etc.

[Celeste Horgan]

Hi Karthik,

I did a bit of research into this. I do not believe we should act on this recommendation at this time, however I would love to hear opinions, particularly from other writers.

First, some facts:

1. The Microsoft Manual of Style and Google Developer Style Guide currently make no recommendations on the use of the word "minority"

2. Results for the term "minority" in Hound are documentation content only, with no mentions in code.

Per the framework:

• I do not think the use of the term "minority" across the project has any indication of being a first order (or targeted) concern. We use it when referring to non-majority quantities of things.
  
• I do think the term could? potentially? fall under a second order concern of having harmful connotations outside of computing.
  
• I do not think the term checks any third order concerns: If anything I think the use of the term "minority" is quite clear.

As such, I do not think we should proceed with a recommendation. I think it's enough to fall back on the APA Style Guide's recommendations around "Writing about "minorities""  for this.

Does anyone else have anything else to add?

Celeste

[Karthikeyan Govindaraj]

Hi Celeste, 

I agree and makes sense wrt our framework. But as you said, let's hear from other people as well about their views and opinions on this. 

If we come to an agreement on this, we will close this thread maybe with status as "Doesn't fall under any concerned order as per framework"

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes WG Naming" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-wg-na...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-wg-naming/f4c1e24b-d5ee-464b-be7e-1e5e50c8c77cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Celeste Horgan]

I think let's close this thread – lazy consensus on doing so: December 14th, at the next meeting.

--

---

Celeste Horgan

Senior Technical Writer, CNCF

Time Zone: PST/Vancouver