5 ms·

It's 2020, why are we still telling people what they're supposed to call themselves? They could style as The Choir of the Aztounding Relational Pachyderm for a

It's 2020, why are we still telling people what they're supposed to call themselves? They could style as The Choir of the Aztounding Relational Pachyderm for all it ought to matter. Notwithstanding which, it's pretty conventional for the role of FOSS project core teams to be administrative-deliberative stewardship and an umbrella authority for all project activities. The overlap with membership of the developer community and concern for technical outcomes is a function of the domain, not the team purpose. The governance consequence at hand being that representational proportions matter to preserve independence and the appearance thereof.

mrslave 6y ago
I can't tell if this is a dig at the elaborate job titles we have today (Director of Creative, Employee Journey Advisor, Sales Engineer, Chief Happiness Officer, etc.) or progressive identity politics (pronouns, etc.). Perhaps they're not unrelated.
- danielheath 6y ago
  "The Choir of the Aztounding Relational Pachyderm" is exactly the kind of group name I would have expected to see in 90s hacker circles (similar to eg the group that produces POC || GTFO - "PASTOR MANUL LAPHROAIG AND HIS MERRY BAND OF REVERSE ENGINEERS").
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    You got me. All I remember is, xs4all threw the best parties and the characters of Cryptonomicon all seem eerily familiar.
tclancy 6y ago
Will you sponsor me to rush?
Thorentis 6y ago
Conventions exist for a reason. Choosing a name which is immediately recognisable and conveys the meaning you know others will glean from it is a sensible and rational thing to do. In fact, picking outlandish names purely to "buck the trend" and make some kind of statement about naming and identity reeks of immaturity and ideology.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  This view isn't merely bland, conservative, and patronising. I find it downright abhorrent, being the kind of sentiment at the roots of every organisation that ever excluded/demoralised the folks that didn't talk, look, think, or behave like some cookie-cutter template. There is no assertable "fact" that diversity of expression, or the expression of preferences and identity, extends from immaturity or ideology. On the contrary, it is a mark of organisational and civilisational maturity, and willingness to embrace ideas, that such self-expression is possible, accepted, and encouraged. The qualifiers I'd suggest instead are heterogeneity and imagination, and there is no trend to buck; the world is, and always has been, full of complicated, imaginative people. When I am very lucky, I even get to work with them. Sans identity, the individual is a puppet, and sans creativity, humanity is cosmically uninteresting.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    There are plenty of other ways to express your individual identity, without hindering ease of communication. In this particular case, giving the group a name which does not contain information about what the group does is contrary to the goal of communicating the group's purpose. If your only goal is to communicate what a progressive, free thinking, modern ideologue you are, then sure, give your groups whatever names you like if that's the sort of people you want to dog whistle to. If, like most other people, you simply want to communicate the groups purpose in a quick way, then there are plenty of de facto standards to follow.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - 6y ago
kbenson 6y ago
> It's 2020, why are we still telling people what they're supposed to call themselves? I think if you look closely you'll see GP didn't say they should be called that, just that it would be more accurate to call them that, presumably with respect to communicating their responsibilities to others.
callamdelaney 6y ago
Because naming is important. I don't call myself Prime Minister, because I'm not the Prime Minister. I don't call my index iterators `golf_ball` either for the same reason.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  The point being, if you did wish to be called Prime Minister then I'd respect your preference. Who's to say that you're not a Prime Minister? Or perhaps that your family name is actually Minister, and your nickname that everyone's known you by since high school is Prime? Whatever you choose, it's not my business to judge.
  - trashburger 6y ago
    What is your opinion on the investigation by the FBI about the person who impersonated an FBI officer on Twitter, then? Should people be allowed to call themselves FBI officers?
    - inopinatus 6y ago
      I have no opinion about US domestic policy and no standing to pronounce one, so I'm unlikely to form one in a hurry just to argue the toss. As for the dumpster fire that is Twitter: the usual advice is, for all Internet denizens is never read the comments, and Twitter is 100% comments. But I digress. The equivalent, in all my own countries of citizenship, origin, or residence, might be that deceiving someone into thinking you are a police officer is already illegal, although simple impersonation may not be e.g. for satirical purposes. Satire aside, in a country that generally trusts its law enforcement personnel, such a deception, particularly in person, may have both high capacity for harm and a high likelihood it occurs for harm's sake. Nevertheless, notwithstanding my total unfamiliarity with the case you refer to, I struggle to see how Twitter is ever anything other than satire. My own Twitter profile reflects this view. Curiously, in Australia, it is illegal to claim an association with Sir Donald Bradman, and for similar reasons of potential harm. Impersonating a Prime Minister is not, since it is a very low occupation and any attempt to do so is self-evidently preposterous.

mrslave 6y ago

I can't tell if this is a dig at the elaborate job titles we have today (Director of Creative, Employee Journey Advisor, Sales Engineer, Chief Happiness Officer, etc.) or progressive identity politics (pronouns, etc.). Perhaps they're not unrelated.

danielheath 6y ago
"The Choir of the Aztounding Relational Pachyderm" is exactly the kind of group name I would have expected to see in 90s hacker circles (similar to eg the group that produces POC || GTFO - "PASTOR MANUL LAPHROAIG AND HIS MERRY BAND OF REVERSE ENGINEERS").
- inopinatus 6y ago
  You got me. All I remember is, xs4all threw the best parties and the characters of Cryptonomicon all seem eerily familiar.

tclancy 6y ago

Will you sponsor me to rush?

Thorentis 6y ago

Conventions exist for a reason. Choosing a name which is immediately recognisable and conveys the meaning you know others will glean from it is a sensible and rational thing to do. In fact, picking outlandish names purely to "buck the trend" and make some kind of statement about naming and identity reeks of immaturity and ideology.

inopinatus 6y ago
This view isn't merely bland, conservative, and patronising. I find it downright abhorrent, being the kind of sentiment at the roots of every organisation that ever excluded/demoralised the folks that didn't talk, look, think, or behave like some cookie-cutter template. There is no assertable "fact" that diversity of expression, or the expression of preferences and identity, extends from immaturity or ideology. On the contrary, it is a mark of organisational and civilisational maturity, and willingness to embrace ideas, that such self-expression is possible, accepted, and encouraged. The qualifiers I'd suggest instead are heterogeneity and imagination, and there is no trend to buck; the world is, and always has been, full of complicated, imaginative people. When I am very lucky, I even get to work with them. Sans identity, the individual is a puppet, and sans creativity, humanity is cosmically uninteresting.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  There are plenty of other ways to express your individual identity, without hindering ease of communication. In this particular case, giving the group a name which does not contain information about what the group does is contrary to the goal of communicating the group's purpose. If your only goal is to communicate what a progressive, free thinking, modern ideologue you are, then sure, give your groups whatever names you like if that's the sort of people you want to dog whistle to. If, like most other people, you simply want to communicate the groups purpose in a quick way, then there are plenty of de facto standards to follow.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 6y ago

kbenson 6y ago

> It's 2020, why are we still telling people what they're supposed to call themselves? I think if you look closely you'll see GP didn't say they should be called that, just that it would be more accurate to call them that, presumably with respect to communicating their responsibilities to others.

callamdelaney 6y ago

Because naming is important. I don't call myself Prime Minister, because I'm not the Prime Minister. I don't call my index iterators `golf_ball` either for the same reason.

inopinatus 6y ago
The point being, if you did wish to be called Prime Minister then I'd respect your preference. Who's to say that you're not a Prime Minister? Or perhaps that your family name is actually Minister, and your nickname that everyone's known you by since high school is Prime? Whatever you choose, it's not my business to judge.
- trashburger 6y ago
  What is your opinion on the investigation by the FBI about the person who impersonated an FBI officer on Twitter, then? Should people be allowed to call themselves FBI officers?
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    I have no opinion about US domestic policy and no standing to pronounce one, so I'm unlikely to form one in a hurry just to argue the toss. As for the dumpster fire that is Twitter: the usual advice is, for all Internet denizens is never read the comments, and Twitter is 100% comments. But I digress. The equivalent, in all my own countries of citizenship, origin, or residence, might be that deceiving someone into thinking you are a police officer is already illegal, although simple impersonation may not be e.g. for satirical purposes. Satire aside, in a country that generally trusts its law enforcement personnel, such a deception, particularly in person, may have both high capacity for harm and a high likelihood it occurs for harm's sake. Nevertheless, notwithstanding my total unfamiliarity with the case you refer to, I struggle to see how Twitter is ever anything other than satire. My own Twitter profile reflects this view. Curiously, in Australia, it is illegal to claim an association with Sir Donald Bradman, and for similar reasons of potential harm. Impersonating a Prime Minister is not, since it is a very low occupation and any attempt to do so is self-evidently preposterous.