Mailing List Archive

Dave,

The goal of removing racially-charged language is to be more inclusive by
being less offensive and more aware of the language we use without
thinking.

Re: Apache naming, you are mixing up the duties of the Apache SpamAssassin
Project with the Apache Software Foundation. This is just an argument
fallacy. My knowledge on the matter is that Brian Behlendorf, one of the
ASF founders, reached out decades ago to discuss this with the Apache
Nation council with all being good. The only change is that in 2009, they
asked us to standardize on referring to them as the Apache Nation but
otherwise, there are no issues with the Apache name. We are proud to use
the name Apache and hope that our great work as a foundation brings it the
honor it deserves.

Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171


On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:48 AM Dave Goodrich <dgoodrich@greenfieldin.org>
wrote:

> No, I am reading your words. The goal here is to remove language you, and
> others, believe to be racially charged. To what goal, I cannot understand.
>
> If you change whitelist/blacklist for the reason you have given, you must
> change the name Apache and change it's logo. The root and origin of both
> are not important, it is culturally insensitive to use the name Apache if
> you are not a native American. To not go all the way with this would simply
> be wrong.
>
> DAve
>
> ----- On Jul 14, 2020, at 8:28 AM, Kevin A. McGrail <kmcgrail@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> I think you are reading other people's take on things. Clearer language
> was an added bonus but never the reason. The reason was to remove racially
> charged language and 4.0 was a good opportunity to do it since the major
> bump would allow for disruption. Further, this article was what reminded
> me to bring it up:
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-ncsc-to-stop-using-whitelist-and-blacklist-due-to-racial-stereotyping/
>
> Regards,
> KAM
> --
> Kevin A. McGrail
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:23 AM Dave Goodrich <dgoodrich@greenfieldin.org>
> wrote:
>
>> The wrong side of history? Are you kidding me?
>>
>> I have been a long time user of Apache products. SA has been my go to
>> solution for decades. Until this morning, I was without opinion on this
>> issue and I even understood, and agreed, that the change had merit for
>> clarity. But, 'go along or be on the wrong side of history' (sic) tells me
>> this is not about a more clear and understandable naming convention. This
>> is posturing and pandering.
>>
>> I am disappointed greatly. Very disappointed.
>>
>> DAve
>>
>> ----- On Jul 14, 2020, at 5:03 AM, Kevin A. McGrail <kmcgrail@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Marc and others about voting,
>>
>> The ASF is a meritocracy not a democracy. Voting privileges are earned
>> by demonstrating merit on a project. That is the project management
>> committee aka the PMC. Discussion with the PMC on this change started in
>> early April with a vote in early May by the PMC.
>>
>> To Marc, your Ad hominem attacks are not needed and I will ignore
>> messages that use them.
>>
>> To you and others spouting off, be reminded that this is a publicly
>> archived mailing list and you will be on the wrong side of history.
>> Consider that when you post.
>>
>> Regards, KAM
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 03:51 Marc Roos <M.Roos@f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > I never said it was being done for engineering reasons. The change is
>>>
>>> > being done to remove racially-charged language from Apache
>>> > SpamAssassin. As an open source project, we are part of a movement
>>> > built on a foundation of inclusion that has changed how computing is
>>> > done. The engineering concerns are outweighed by the social benefits
>>> > and your huffing is not going to stop it.
>>> >
>>>
>>> If you are referencing opensource and community. Why is this group not
>>> voting on this? Why is only a small group deciding what is being done?
>>> Such a vote, hardly can classify as open source, community nor
>>> democratic.
>>>
>>
>

jdow,

Change: Words 'blacklist/whitelist' to something politically correct
(hope and change).

Proponents: Those who want this change

Opponents: Those who don't want this change

Though we agree in the end--we're both opponents--I believe arguing the
technical merits is useless (not with me, with the proponents) since the
decision by the proponents wasn't based in the technical, it was based
in the social.

As I've pointed out in previous posts the proponents are under a delusion.

The multicultural agenda is doomed to fail because it seeks to unify
people who think differently as is evidenced on this list. Look at
Europe and the U.S. now. There has been years of the multicultural
agenda pushed on these cultures and it has brought no unity but upheaval
and it will only get worse. The proponents are bringing about their own
demise. It may not happen immediately, but it will happen.

We've been accused of making this political. We haven't. The politics
were forced on us. The reasons of the proponents bear this out. When we
respond politically,  we're charged with making it political or told to
go away.

How does on reason with people like this. As I've found out, you can't.

Unity is achieved among people who have the same mind.

Eric Broch



On 7/14/2020 4:07 AM, jdow wrote:
> Please Marc, stick to technical merit for your argument. Getting nasty
> does not solve technical problems, which we have here. Attacks are not
> going to solve anything. Rational arguments may not. But, they should
> be made just the same. Then the open source developers will go off and
> do what they (think they) want. The job is to lead them to thinking
> they want something different for what they see as good reasons.
> Personally I believe the change is a technical failure and will not
> provide the social results they seem to desire. They should think
> about it.
>
> {o.o}
>
> On 20200714 02:57:19, Marc Roos wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> To you and others spouting off, be reminded that this is a publicly
>> archived mailing list and you
>>> will be on the wrong side of history. Consider that when you post.
>>
>> You must be feeling like a king in your little PMC? Who are you to judge
>> whom is on the wrong side of history. No wonder people raise questions
>> here, with someone like you deciding things. I think the PMC should
>> disqualify your vote.
>>

Eric Broch <ebroch@whitehorsetc.com> writes:

> As I've pointed out in previous posts the proponents are under a delusion.

It is fascinating that the person who cried about ad hominem attacks so
much resorts to the very same.

Every time Eric Broch writes to me off-list, or on list about this
subject, I donate another $10 to a cultural marxist organization in his
name. Thanks Eric for your continued support of BLM!

--
micah

* Kevin A. McGrail:

> To you and others spouting off, be reminded that this is a publicly
> archived mailing list and you will be on the wrong side of history.

"The horror... The horror..." (W. Kurtz) :-)

Seriously, what's with the drama? This discussion already has emotions
running high.

As I mentioned before: What may or may not count as "racially charged"
in America does not automatically apply to the rest of the world. It is
quite obvious from this thread that Americans don't even agree among
themselves. Also, remember that American history does not automatically
interest the whole globe.

Announcing changes for which there are no technical necessities is prone
to cause discussions, and that's a Good Thing(TM) in my book. You may
have voted earlier, but apparently a wider public has only now found out
about these changes (which includes myself). I don't have a vote, but
I'll "risk" (SCNR) commenting publicly on what I consider unnecessary
and, in fact, a harmful attempt to restrict use of the English language.
It is, in my experience, not the most nuanced language anyway.

-Ralph

Semantics, I chose the wrong project name but the point is still there. That the Apache Nation doesn't mind is not important in today's culture, I know black people who do not feel offended by the term blacklist.

I do not believe the term blacklist had any racial origins, until white people assigned race to it. If it was not racist before, and you make it racist now just so you can change it, isn't that a bit elitist? Even racist?

I do not see the problem you are trying to solve. I do not know w hat black schools have no IT training programs because the terms being used offend the student body. I do not understand how the use of these terms is harming the industry and how changing these terms will open doors to people of color that have been closed until now.

I like the change from whitelist/blacklist to allowlist/blocklist because it is more descriptive. Changing them because they are racially charged is silly. BLM is not going to give you a big hurrah on twitter for your efforts.

I can't stop it from happening, so be it.

DAve

----- On Jul 14, 2020, at 9:15 AM, Kevin A. McGrail <kmcgrail@apache.org> wrote:

> Dave,
> The goal of removing racially-charged language is to be more inclusive by being
> less offensive and more aware of the language we use without thinking.

> Re: Apache naming, you are mixing up the duties of the Apache SpamAssassin
> Project with the Apache Software Foundation. This is just an argument fallacy.
> My knowledge on the matter is that Brian Behlendorf, one of the ASF founders,
> reached out decades ago to discuss this with the Apache Nation council with all
> being good. The only change is that in 2009, they asked us to standardize on
> referring to them as the Apache Nation but otherwise, there are no issues with
> the Apache name. We are proud to use the name Apache and hope that our great
> work as a foundation brings it the honor it deserves.

> Regards,
> KAM
> --
> Kevin A. McGrail
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> [ https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail | https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail ]
> - 703.798.0171

> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:48 AM Dave Goodrich < [
> mailto:dgoodrich@greenfieldin.org | dgoodrich@greenfieldin.org ] > wrote:

>> No, I am reading your words. The goal here is to remove language you, and
>> others, believe to be racially charged. To what goal, I cannot understand.

>> If you change whitelist/blacklist for the reason you have given, you must change
>> the name Apache and change it's logo. The root and origin of both are not
>> important, it is culturally insensitive to use the name Apache if you are not a
>> native American. To not go all the way with this would simply be wrong.

>> DAve

>> ----- On Jul 14, 2020, at 8:28 AM, Kevin A. McGrail < [
>> mailto:kmcgrail@apache.org | kmcgrail@apache.org ] > wrote:

>>> I think you are reading other people's take on things. Clearer language was an
>>> added bonus but never the reason. The reason was to remove racially charged
>>> language and 4.0 was a good opportunity to do it since the major bump would
>>> allow for disruption. Further, this article was what reminded me to bring it
>>> up: [
>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-ncsc-to-stop-using-whitelist-and-blacklist-due-to-racial-stereotyping/
>>> |
>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-ncsc-to-stop-using-whitelist-and-blacklist-due-to-racial-stereotyping/
>>> ]
>>> Regards,
>>> KAM
>>> --
>>> Kevin A. McGrail
>>> Member, Apache Software Foundation
>>> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
>>> [ https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail | https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail ]
>>> - 703.798.0171

>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:23 AM Dave Goodrich < [
>>> mailto:dgoodrich@greenfieldin.org | dgoodrich@greenfieldin.org ] > wrote:

>>>> The wrong side of history? Are you kidding me?

>>>> I have been a long time user of Apache products. SA has been my go to solution
>>>> for decades. Until this morning, I was without opinion on this issue and I even
>>>> understood, and agreed, that the change had merit for clarity. But, 'go along
>>>> or be on the wrong side of history' (sic) tells me this is not about a more
>>>> clear and understandable naming convention. This is posturing and pandering.

>>>> I am disappointed greatly. Very disappointed.

>>>> DAve

>>>> ----- On Jul 14, 2020, at 5:03 AM, Kevin A. McGrail < [
>>>> mailto:kmcgrail@apache.org | kmcgrail@apache.org ] > wrote:

>>>>> Marc and others about voting,

>>>>> The ASF is a meritocracy not a democracy. Voting privileges are earned by
>>>>> demonstrating merit on a project. That is the project management committee aka
>>>>> the PMC. Discussion with the PMC on this change started in early April with a
>>>>> vote in early May by the PMC.

>>>>> To Marc, your Ad hominem attacks are not needed and I will ignore messages that
>>>>> use them.

>>>>> To you and others spouting off, be reminded that this is a publicly archived
>>>>> mailing list and you will be on the wrong side of history. Consider that when
>>>>> you post.

>>>>> Regards, KAM

>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 03:51 Marc Roos < [ mailto:M.Roos@f1-outsourcing.eu |
>>>>> M.Roos@f1-outsourcing.eu ] > wrote:

>>>>>> > I never said it was being done for engineering reasons. The change is

>>>>>> > being done to remove racially-charged language from Apache
>>>>>> > SpamAssassin. As an open source project, we are part of a movement
>>>>>> > built on a foundation of inclusion that has changed how computing is
>>>>>> > done. The engineering concerns are outweighed by the social benefits
>>>>>> > and your huffing is not going to stop it.


>>>>>> If you are referencing opensource and community. Why is this group not
>>>>>> voting on this? Why is only a small group deciding what is being done?
>>>>>> Such a vote, hardly can classify as open source, community nor
>>>>>> democratic.

> I like the change from whitelist/blacklist to allowlist/blocklist
because it is more descriptive.

Allow/deny list sounds more logical.

On 7/14/20 4:05 PM, Dave Goodrich wrote:
> I can't stop it from happening, so be it.

Here's an idea..
if enough voices are loud enough... Make yourself heard, press, twitter,
etc.. use the same channels which are being used to favour the change.

Or are there too many ppl who fear being in the wrong side of history.

Yeah, allow/deny is more logical but using them requires all acronyms to
change. After some trial and error, we dialed in the changes to welcome
and block which also keeps other terminology like RBL, DNSBL, WLBL, etc.
consistent so there is less upheaval.

Regards,
KAM

--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171


On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:08 AM Marc Roos <M.Roos@f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote:

>
>
> > I like the change from whitelist/blacklist to allowlist/blocklist
> because it is more descriptive.
>
> Allow/deny list sounds more logical.
>

> Yeah, allow/deny is more logical but using them requires all acronyms
to change.
> After some trial and error, we dialed in the changes to welcome and
block which
> also keeps other terminology like RBL, DNSBL, WLBL, etc. consistent
> so there is less upheaval.

I associate BL with blacklist. If that is how the general perception is,
and most of what is written on the internet is relating to, I don't see
how you can maintain those acronyms.
Allow/deny is also commonly used in linux so one could argue, it is
adapting to standards.

Your association is just antiquated. I can't remember exactly when but
blocklist has been getting used to replace the racially-charged nature of
blacklist. Here's a public example from 2012:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPAMASSASSIN/DnsBlocklistsInclusionPolicy


This verbiage change isn't new and the impetus wasn't political nor
American-driven. It's just the right time to do it AND we have 4.0's
release giving us the perfect opportunity.

Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171


On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:28 AM Marc Roos <M.Roos@f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote:

>
>
>
> > Yeah, allow/deny is more logical but using them requires all acronyms
> to change.
> > After some trial and error, we dialed in the changes to welcome and
> block which
> > also keeps other terminology like RBL, DNSBL, WLBL, etc. consistent
> > so there is less upheaval.
>
> I associate BL with blacklist. If that is how the general perception is,
> and most of what is written on the internet is relating to, I don't see
> how you can maintain those acronyms.
> Allow/deny is also commonly used in linux so one could argue, it is
> adapting to standards.
>
>
>
>
>
>

I would argue that welcome is better than allow in many contexts,
including SpamAssassin. After all, w.*list isn't just used to indicate
something is allowed, but to indicate that we actively want to receive
the email in question (by lowering its score).

You allow a maintenance worker into your apartment, but you welcome
a friend


On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

> Yeah, allow/deny is more logical but using them requires all acronyms to
> change.  After some trial and error, we dialed in the changes to welcome and
> block which also keeps other terminology like RBL, DNSBL, WLBL, etc.
> consistent so there is less upheaval.
> Regards,
> KAM
>
> --
> Kevin A. McGrail
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:08 AM Marc Roos <M.Roos@f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote:
>  
>
> > I like the change from whitelist/blacklist to
> allowlist/blocklist
> because it is more descriptive.
>
> Allow/deny list sounds more logical.
>
>
>

--
Public key #7BBC68D9 at | Shane Williams
http://pgp.mit.edu/ | System Admin - UT CompSci
=----------------------------------+-------------------------------
All syllogisms contain three lines | shanew@shanew.net
Therefore this is not a syllogism | www.ischool.utexas.edu/~shanew

> racially-charged nature of blacklist

There is no such thing.

Black list originates from black book, that is a book with white pages and black cover, with black ink, where sins are listed in haven for you to be judged upon.

On the colour of the cover, it is black because that's how old leather turns out to be.

On the colour of ink, try writing white ink on black paper if you can...

Stop using SA to push your political agenda. When v4 comes out, do not dare writing that *we* decided to *change* blacklist into blocklist because of the "racially-charged nature" of it, because it is not, because we said so, and because you are forcing it.

Have the courage to put your own name under your own decision, do not blame us for it.

-------- Original Message --------
On 14 Jul 2020, 16:48, Kevin A. McGrail < kmcgrail@apache.org> wrote:
Your association is just antiquated. I can't remember exactly when but blocklist has been getting used to replace the racially-charged nature of blacklist. Here's a public example from 2012: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPAMASSASSIN/DnsBlocklistsInclusionPolicy

This verbiage change isn't new and the impetus wasn't political nor American-driven. It's just the right time to do it AND we have 4.0's release giving us the perfect opportunity.

Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:28 AM Marc Roos <M.Roos@f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote:

> Yeah, allow/deny is more logical but using them requires all acronyms
to change.
> After some trial and error, we dialed in the changes to welcome and
block which
> also keeps other terminology like RBL, DNSBL, WLBL, etc. consistent
> so there is less upheaval.

I associate BL with blacklist. If that is how the general perception is,
and most of what is written on the internet is relating to, I don't see
how you can maintain those acronyms.
Allow/deny is also commonly used in linux so one could argue, it is
adapting to standards.

On 7/14/20 8:15 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> The only change is that in 2009, they asked us to standardize on
> referring to them as the /*_Apache Nation_*/ but otherwise, there are
> no issues with the Apache name.  We are proud to use the name Apache
> and hope that our great work as a foundation brings it the honor it
> deserves.
>
> Regards,
> KAM
> --
> Kevin A. McGrail
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>

So out of curiosity Mr. McGrail,
for the sake of consistency and common courtesy to Native Americans
wishes, don't you need to modify your signature line ?

We'll have to agree to disagree. To me it is clearly racially charged
language and you are cherry picking your sources. Here's a well researched
and documented article from a medical journal on the topic with expert
citations: https://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/490 The abstract
says it very well: "This commentary addresses the widespread use of racist
language in discussions concerning predatory publishing. Examples include
terminology such as blacklists, whitelists, and black sheep. The use of
such terms does not merely reflect a racist culture, but also serves to
legitimize and perpetuate it."

I am proud to say I voted for this issue and support it as social
issue, not a political issue. However, I didn't do so unilaterally because
that's not how projects at Apache work.

When the time comes for a 4.0 release, we, meaning the project management
commitment, will follow our well documented voting procedures to create and
approve a release announcement. I have no interest in causing strife but
if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, I will call it a duck.
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171


On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:49 AM Rupert Gallagher <ruga@protonmail.com>
wrote:

>
> > racially-charged nature of blacklist
>
> There is no such thing.
>
> Black list originates from black book, that is a book with white pages and
> black cover, with black ink, where sins are listed in haven for you to be
> judged upon.
>
> On the colour of the cover, it is black because that's how old leather
> turns out to be.
>
> On the colour of ink, try writing white ink on black paper if you can...
>
> Stop using SA to push your political agenda. When v4 comes out, do not
> dare writing that *we* decided to *change* blacklist into blocklist because
> of the "racially-charged nature" of it, because it is not, because we said
> so, and because you are forcing it.
>
> Have the courage to put your own name under your own decision, do not
> blame us for it.
>
>
>

On 14 Jul 2020, at 9:24, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

> Here's a well researched
> and documented article from a medical journal on the topic with expert
> citations: https://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/490 The
> abstract
> says it very well: "This commentary addresses the widespread use of
> racist
> language in discussions concerning predatory publishing. Examples
> include
> terminology such as blacklists, whitelists, and black sheep. The use
> of
> such terms does not merely reflect a racist culture, but also serves
> to
> legitimize and perpetuate it."

You might want to note that it was included in JMLA Vol 106, No 4 (2018)
in the **Commentary** section, along with pieces such as

"Using Slack to communicate with medical students"
"The relative citation ratio: what is it and why should medical
librarians care?"
"Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to
support the educational needs of researchers"
and
"How to earn a reputation as a great partner"

So yeah, quoting a magazine article on a scientific-sounding source is
great and all, but perhaps the citation is not as authoritative as you
think it is. If you actually go and read the paper, you will see that
the "evidence" the authors present is based on other people's similarly
sourced lists. There are no surveys, polls or other mechanisms to query
the actual sentiment of the allegedly affected population. I also have
to note that this piece was not peer reviewed, so there was no checks
for methodology or accuracy – why would there need to be one, it's
commentary after all.

The quote provides proof that the topic is controversial. Not surprising
judging by the length of the threads. I think it is also clear that
there are two well defined poles on the issue.

Dismissing those that oppose this change as "socially insensitive" or
"racists", as has been seen in previous messages, is a transparent
attempt to demonize the opposition. The same can be said of those
dismissing the group that wants to edit the terms. Both group have their
own motivations and I am pretty sure that each believe their motivations
to be good. I believe so about my own and I'm sure you are the same.

The vote of the PMC is being presented as an unsurmountable, immovable
design from the gods that need to be followed by all. I think the PMC
would be very wise to recognize that their prior vote lacked in
consideration to all the positions and should be reconsidered after an
appropriate opportunity to internalize the arguments that have been
presented. After all, it has been recognized by some defenders of the
term replacement, that this action is a mere gesture devoid of actual
ability to change the real underlying problem – which is not
constrained to the US, as some mentioned.

Best regards

-lem

Luis, the article I quoted was well research and included expert
citations.  I'd be interested if you can find me one that says it isn't
racially-charged with expert citations, please.  Especially one that has
citations almost 50 years old that mention the problem.

> The vote of the PMC is being presented as an unsurmountable, immovable
> design from the gods that need to be followed by all. I think the PMC
> would be very wise to recognize that their prior vote lacked in
> consideration to all the positions and should be reconsidered after an
> appropriate opportunity to internalize the arguments that have been
> presented. After all, it has been recognized by some defenders of the
> term replacement, that this action is a mere gesture devoid of actual
> ability to change the real underlying problem – which is not
> constrained to the US, as some mentioned.

The PMC voted to make the changes and make the changes 100% backwards
compatible for no less than a year.  They also won't be considered for
removal until SA 4.1 is released.  Therefore, to me the hullabaloo is
fairly pointless.  People stuck in the past who insist on not changing
have that choice.

The ONLY technical battle worth discussing is way down the road and
that's whether enough movement has been made by 4.1 that delaying the
removal of backwards compatibility.

Regards,
KAM

--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org

Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171

The technical merit is simple, it's not broken, don't fix it.

There is no technical merit to be achieved here. I feel that a lot of the argument here is just that.

The is merely a moral merit.

I think these types of changes should be used for new projects, but for existing projects like SA the risk versus reward might be too high. Will SA live long if the implantation fails and takes down a couple systems for notable companies? If email fails because of a small change you risk hurting the project more than promoting it.
I think this moral merit change is splitting this community at this point, and that is how we kill projects.

Now I'm not weighing in on whether this change is right or wrong from a geopolitical point of view and that's just a rabbit hole for absolute interpretation by the observers (what offends one does not offend the other, vice versa). You will never please 100% of the people 100% of the time, you will only ever please the loudest or the ones that would cause the most trouble (these are just general observations of life).

Hopefully this is not the hill SA dies on.


-----Original Message-----
From: jdow <jdow@earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 3:07 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org; Marc Roos <M.Roos@f1-outsourcing.eu>; kmcgrail <kmcgrail@apache.org>
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR PEOPLE RUNNING TRUNK re: [Bug 7826] Improve language around whitelist/blacklist and master/slave

Please Marc, stick to technical merit for your argument. Getting nasty does not solve technical problems, which we have here. Attacks are not going to solve anything. Rational arguments may not. But, they should be made just the same.
Then the open source developers will go off and do what they (think they) want.
The job is to lead them to thinking they want something different for what they see as good reasons. Personally I believe the change is a technical failure and will not provide the social results they seem to desire. They should think about it.

{o.o}

On 20200714 02:57:19, Marc Roos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> To you and others spouting off, be reminded that this is a publicly
> archived mailing list and you
>> will be on the wrong side of history. Consider that when you post.
>
> You must be feeling like a king in your little PMC? Who are you to
> judge whom is on the wrong side of history. No wonder people raise
> questions here, with someone like you deciding things. I think the PMC
> should disqualify your vote.
>

On 14 Jul 2020, at 10:10, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

Kevin,

If my words or position had any chance of modifying course, I would
certainly do so again. But as you say further down, the "hullabaloo" of
people trying to present other points of view, is pointless.

> Luis, the article I quoted was well research and included expert
> citations.  I'd be interested if you can find me one that says it
> isn't
> racially-charged with expert citations, please.  Especially one that
> has
> citations almost 50 years old that mention the problem.

I meant actual research, where they reach out to affected populations,
poll them and actually go through data to reach a conclusion. I am
biased here with being an engineer and all, but that is the kind of
evidence I would like to see.

Quoting editorial pieces will lead us nowhere.

> The PMC voted to make the changes and make the changes 100% backwards
> compatible for no less than a year.  They also won't be considered
> for
> removal until SA 4.1 is released.  Therefore, to me the hullabaloo is
> fairly pointless.  People stuck in the past who insist on not
> changing
> have that choice.
>
> The ONLY technical battle worth discussing is way down the road and
> that's whether enough movement has been made by 4.1 that delaying the
> removal of backwards compatibility.

Understood. I will shut up now. Thanks for your time.

-lem

On Tue, 2020-07-14 at 12:24 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> We'll have to agree to disagree. To me it is clearly racially charged
> language and you are cherry picking your sources. Here's a well
> researched
> and documented article from a medical journal on the topic with expert
> citations: https://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/490 The
> abstract
>
The first *recorded* use of the term 'blacklist' or 'black list' was in
1660 when Charles II of England used it to refer to a list of those who
had killed his father, Charles I. From the context it is far more likely
that 'black list' was referring to the sin of regicide than to anybody's
skin colour.

I notice that the abstract you quoted has no references earlier than
1962, so I find it hard to take it seriously, especially as the earlier
religious links between 'black' and 'sin' appear to be ignored by it.
This is odd considering how much influence religion had on society in
the 17th century and that there was no slavery in North America before
about 1640.

Out of pure curiosity, when was the current racist use of 'black' first
coined and where did that happen?

Me? I grew up in NZ where the social norms were against any attempt to
denigrate Maoris: anybody who would not let a Maori meter-reader in to
read his electricity meter would not be sent a pakeha meter reader and
so was more or less guaranteed to get a heavy fine for late payment and
failing to get his meter read. Similarly, I don't remember the All
Blacks, national rugby team, ever not having Maoris in it.

Martin

I would posit that the 1962 date is rooted as much in the US Civil Rights
movement in the 1960's as anything else. Before then white and black
definitely had negative connotations such as whites-only restrooms, areas
on busses, restaurants, water fountains, neighborhoods, and whatever other
atrocities people thought of to inflict on people by race. SA is going to
stop legitimizing and perpetuating the use of racially charged language.

For those who insist, you have backwards compatibility and I hope the
change is embraced.

--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171


On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 3:08 PM Martin Gregorie <martin@gregorie.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2020-07-14 at 12:24 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> > We'll have to agree to disagree. To me it is clearly racially charged
> > language and you are cherry picking your sources. Here's a well
> > researched
> > and documented article from a medical journal on the topic with expert
> > citations: https://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/490 The
> > abstract
> >
> The first *recorded* use of the term 'blacklist' or 'black list' was in
> 1660 when Charles II of England used it to refer to a list of those who
> had killed his father, Charles I. From the context it is far more likely
> that 'black list' was referring to the sin of regicide than to anybody's
> skin colour.
>
> I notice that the abstract you quoted has no references earlier than
> 1962, so I find it hard to take it seriously, especially as the earlier
> religious links between 'black' and 'sin' appear to be ignored by it.
> This is odd considering how much influence religion had on society in
> the 17th century and that there was no slavery in North America before
> about 1640.
>
> Out of pure curiosity, when was the current racist use of 'black' first
> coined and where did that happen?
>
> Me? I grew up in NZ where the social norms were against any attempt to
> denigrate Maoris: anybody who would not let a Maori meter-reader in to
> read his electricity meter would not be sent a pakeha meter reader and
> so was more or less guaranteed to get a heavy fine for late payment and
> failing to get his meter read. Similarly, I don't remember the All
> Blacks, national rugby team, ever not having Maoris in it.
>
> Martin
>
>
>

* Kevin A. McGrail:

> I would posit that the 1962 date is rooted as much in the US Civil
> Rights movement in the 1960's as anything else. Before then white and
> black definitely had negative connotations [...]

And we're back, once again, to America: The *US* Civil Rights movement
(which I consider a positive thing by the way). You obviously continue
to ignore that white/black mean different things across the globe.

If you talk about "die Schwarzen" (lit. "the Blacks") in Germany without
specifying a different context, in most civil minded discussions people
will assume you are talking about members of the either one of the
established conservative parties CDU/CSU, i.e. the governing parties.
"Die Roten" (lit. "the Reds") would be the socialist democratic party
SPD, "die Gelben" (lit. "the Yellows") the free decmocratic party FDP,
and so forth.

Look at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_deutschen_Bundesregierungen,
the list of German governments over time, and you will see how the
various colours match political parties here. This is just one country,
but the one in which I happen to live, and what America thinks about
colours does not interest me all that much.

> SA is going to stop legitimizing and perpetuating the use of racially
> charged language.

This is and remains primarily a US-centric issue, no matter if you try
to convince us (and perhaps even yourself) otherwise. I don't care if
you can sleep better at night. It is obnoxious and arrogant to try and
push a America-centric (or possibly Anglo-centric) viewpoint on the
world. We do you the courtesy of speaking English, so please do us the
courtesy of not bullying us about what you consider permissible or
racially charged.

> For those who insist, you have backwards compatibility and I hope the
> change is embraced.

Hope all you like. It is not.

-Ralph

I really do not get the point of refering to some period, are you a
historian? I am not doing any research on this subject but, the
white/black good/bad dualism[1] goes as far back as 1000BC, who are we
(current generation) to stamp this as being racist and alter the meaning
of it's use in the 1000's of years before. If you are using a few
hundred years as an argument. I have a few thousand years as counter
argument. And lets be honest, US culture is nothing compared to eg
Chinese. If it where not for their gun powder invention, there would not
have been a genocide killing around 50? million native Americans.

Your arguments do not make sense, because you are not able to judge this
with your limited knowledge of the situation, (as I am not qualified).
Do you get that this is beyond your capabilities? You are deciding
something that a team of 100 experts al with higher IQ than yours,
specilized in the various aspects that come into play, probably have
difficulties giving a general advice.





[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin A. McGrail [mailto:kmcgrail@apache.org]
Sent: dinsdag 14 juli 2020 21:16
To: martin@gregorie.org
Cc: Rupert Gallagher; Marc Roos; Dave Goodrich; SA Mailing list
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR PEOPLE RUNNING TRUNK re: [Bug 7826]
Improve language around whitelist/blacklist and master/slave

I would posit that the 1962 date is rooted as much in the US Civil
Rights movement in the 1960's as anything else. Before then white and
black definitely had negative connotations such as whites-only
restrooms, areas on busses, restaurants, water fountains, neighborhoods,
and whatever other atrocities people thought of to inflict on people by
race. SA is going to stop legitimizing and perpetuating the use of
racially charged language.

For those who insist, you have backwards compatibility and I hope the
change is embraced.

--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171



On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 3:08 PM Martin Gregorie <martin@gregorie.org>
wrote:


On Tue, 2020-07-14 at 12:24 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> We'll have to agree to disagree. To me it is clearly racially
charged
> language and you are cherry picking your sources. Here's a well
> researched
> and documented article from a medical journal on the topic with
expert
> citations: https://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/490 The
> abstract
>
The first *recorded* use of the term 'blacklist' or 'black list'
was in
1660 when Charles II of England used it to refer to a list of those
who
had killed his father, Charles I. From the context it is far more
likely
that 'black list' was referring to the sin of regicide than to
anybody's
skin colour.

I notice that the abstract you quoted has no references earlier
than
1962, so I find it hard to take it seriously, especially as the
earlier
religious links between 'black' and 'sin' appear to be ignored by
it.
This is odd considering how much influence religion had on society
in
the 17th century and that there was no slavery in North America
before
about 1640.

Out of pure curiosity, when was the current racist use of 'black'
first
coined and where did that happen?

Me? I grew up in NZ where the social norms were against any attempt
to
denigrate Maoris: anybody who would not let a Maori meter-reader in
to
read his electricity meter would not be sent a pakeha meter reader
and
so was more or less guaranteed to get a heavy fine for late payment
and
failing to get his meter read. Similarly, I don't remember the All
Blacks, national rugby team, ever not having Maoris in it.

Martin

> We do you the courtesy of speaking English, so please do us the
courtesy of not bullying us about
> what you consider permissible or racially charged.

That is our own fault also. I have been trying to get funding for a
project to counter some US monopoly, but we have here just cheap/greedy
investors that do not allow for such ideas to sprout. Since you brought
up the language aspect, you might be pleased to read that my favorite
saying is German, "gegen Dummheit k?mpfen G?tter selbst vergebens"

> Here's a well researched and documented article from a medical
> journal on the topic with expert citations:
> https://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/490 The abstract says it
> very well: "This commentary addresses the widespread use of racist
> language in discussions concerning predatory publishing. Examples
> include terminology such as blacklists, whitelists, and black sheep.
> The use of such terms does not merely reflect a racist culture, but
> also serves to legitimize and perpetuate it."

I was impressed by the plethora of citations when I first overlooked the
article. However, none of those citations prove that black* and white*
are connected to race. Any citation around "predatory publishing" can be
ignored in our context, because that term is completely unrelated to
linguistics or racism, so such citation cannot prove a point but merely
serve as an example that those words can be found in journal texts.

[40-42] where citations that seemed promising, but I could not
find the full articles without a paywall in front of them. The cited
passages from [40-42] in the article itself though, i.e. the
connotations of "WHITENESS" and "BLACKNESS", do not prove a connection
to race.

Another statement from the article:

> It is notable that the first recorded use of the term occurs at the
> time of mass enslavement and forced deportation of Africans to work
> in European-held colonies in the Americas.
Even if this were true, it does not mean that every word around black-
and whiteness is automatically connected to race.

As Kurt Fitzner pointed out:

> White and black have been and are references to light and dark, and
> in every language race and culture on the planet are used in compound
> words, phrases and sentences that evoke metaphors of good and bad

My latin dictionary refers to "ignes nigri" and "hic niger est" as
examples of metaphors of badness that have been used by Horace or Virgil
before the 1590s.

They created a problem that was not there and then "solved it". Aren't they
marvelous? Solving social problems by means of technical name changes does not
solve either technical or social problems. This has been my experience
repeatedly. Are we now not able to include a color in descriptions of technical
features? What does that do to the black and white bands on resistor color
codes? After all, white (9) is a higher number than black (1) which is, of
course, blatant racial profiling, right?

What social problem is this supposed to solve? Is it real or is it made up? As a
woman neologisms such as "hesh" and "hir" do not reassure me and make me more
comfortable in the various technical communities I join because of my interests.
A few times, not NEARLY as often as four decades ago or more, I've taken
advantage of the fact you guys cannot see me and draw inferences mostly based on
such technical expertise as I demonstrate. Then I let my being a woman leak out,
I use my name in addition to my usual signature glyph. Some of the men cannot
accept a woman being a peer. Recognition for expertise, ability, and knowledge
is WAY WAY more important when you want to create an "inclusive" group than
choice or pronouns. I figure I am included when people automatically presume I
am part of "you guys" when they use that phrase. When I am accepted the pronouns
drop out of importance.

I an not here to be a "gurl". I am here as somebody who commits sysadmin
functions on a small two man* office for me and my partner. I can extrapolate
the problems we will face to those people who perform system administration
functions for collections of small businesses on a consulting basis. Customers
will see their need to take actions or accept "somebody snooping on their
settings" on the consultant. You guys at Apache are in the clear. The customers
won't be charging their anger to your karma. I am not in technical groups to
flaunt my femininity or lack there of. I am not here partner hunting. I am not
here as a woman. I am here as a user who has some level of technical capability.
I've not been demonstrating it lately because mostly it works and when it does
not I make rules for myself that do work. And my partner is even better at
making rules. Since SARE died sharing the rules has sort of fallen away. So I
tend to be silent until I am faced with "it just works" quit working. I am
human. I resent that imposition for reasons I rather consider spurious and
utterly without technical merit.

I see a change being made to solve a phantom social problem pandering to some
truly violent people some of whom brag about being trained Marxist agitators.
That change causes technical and social problems for a class of your (admittedly
non paying) customers to whom you pass along the need to make changes for no
good technical reason. These violent people will never be appeased by changes
you make. So why bother to make the changes? Rather ask, no demand, your lazy
assed politicians to do their jobs.

As for the social problem, Kevin, I am afraid that as I see it you are a part of
the problem not part of any applicable social or technical solution.

{^_^}

* "two man" is less typing than "two person" and less silly than any other three
letter neologism that recognizes "man" is really "male" and "female" and 307
different shades in between. Man means human here. That is something that so far
is all inclusive. I do not expect that to last forever. The term has to grow to fit.

On 20200714 05:28:56, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> I think you are reading other people's take on things.  Clearer language was an
> added bonus but never the reason.  The reason was to remove racially charged
> language and 4.0 was a good opportunity to do it since the major bump would
> allow for disruption.  Further, this article was what reminded me to bring it
> up:
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-ncsc-to-stop-using-whitelist-and-blacklist-due-to-racial-stereotyping/
> Regards,
> KAM
> --
> Kevin A. McGrail
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:23 AM Dave Goodrich <dgoodrich@greenfieldin.org
> <mailto:dgoodrich@greenfieldin.org>> wrote:
>
> The wrong side of history? Are you kidding me?
>
> I have been a long time user of Apache products. SA has been my go to
> solution for decades. Until this morning, I was without opinion on this
> issue and I even understood, and agreed, that the change had merit for
> clarity. But, 'go along or be on the wrong side of history' (sic) tells me
> this is not about a more clear and understandable naming convention. This is
> posturing and pandering.
>
> I am disappointed greatly. Very disappointed.
>
> DAve
>
> ----- On Jul 14, 2020, at 5:03 AM, Kevin A. McGrail <kmcgrail@apache.org
> <mailto:kmcgrail@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> Marc and others about voting,
>
> The ASF is a meritocracy not a democracy.  Voting privileges are earned
> by demonstrating merit on a project.  That is the project management
> committee aka the PMC.  Discussion with the PMC on this change started
> in early April with a vote in early May by the PMC.
>
> To Marc, your Ad hominem attacks are not needed and I will ignore
> messages that use them.
>
> To you and others spouting off, be reminded that this is a publicly
> archived mailing list and you will be on the wrong side of history.
> Consider that when you post.
>
> Regards, KAM
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 03:51 Marc Roos <M.Roos@f1-outsourcing.eu
> <mailto:M.Roos@f1-outsourcing.eu>> wrote:
>
>
> > I never said it was being done for engineering reasons.  The
> change is
>
> > being done to remove racially-charged language from Apache
> > SpamAssassin.  As an open source project, we are part of a movement
> > built on a foundation of inclusion that has changed how computing is
> > done.  The engineering concerns are outweighed by the social
> benefits
> > and your huffing is not going to stop it.
> >
>
> If you are referencing opensource and community. Why is this group not
> voting on this? Why is only a small group deciding what is being done?
> Such a vote, hardly can classify as open source, community nor
> democratic.
>
>