Found this blog post and found it had more insight into the issues around the dev and the toxicity in FOSS
They didn’t just ask the dev to change it, they submitted a pr that would’ve fixed it. All the maintainer had to do is click merge
The maintainer was the one that brought politics into it!
I understand that, but the whole point behind it was them making an assumption about something and proposing a change because they didn’t like their term that the dev used. Yet there was LITERALLY nothing wrong with the term.
The guy definitely made an ass of himself with his responses.
Like I said, both of them are idiots over this. It was pointless to make an issue out of it to begin with, and then then the dev making it even worse didn’t help.
You seem very, very sure of there being “LITERALLY” no problem with the gendered pronoun being used for an unknown user.
Instead of hand-waving it away as the author being male and just prefering his own pronouns in his writing, we could maybe consider where it is being written and why it might feel particularly non-inclusive? ie: a field that has historically been very intentionally uninviting to women?
Also, it’s not like this was someone petitioning for a boycott over one assumed pronoun, they just quietly fixed the grammar and submitted the change. Absolutely nothing idiotic about it.
There literally wasn’t a problem.
Until the person that asked for the correction literally assumed that said dev was assuming. Since thats what they said in their comment.
So I can understand being a little pissy at someone pointing to you and accusing you of assuming something. It’s stupid.
I may have been a little irritated too if someone accused me of assuming something. I wouldn’t have reacted the same, but I would have been clear that I in no way assume anything related to gender identity.
If the person wouldn’t have put that assumption into their comment, the change may have been more likely to happen.
Instead they assumed something and got push back which turned into the scene we see now.
Ass u me… I mean it’s pretty clear.
the whole point behind it was them making an assumption about something
What makes you think the change suggesters assumed ill intent?
The submitted PRs seem to reason improvement, not accuse the original author. I see them suggesting a change, neutrally. With (minimal) objective reasoning.
/edit: I see the later ones did. But the first one didn’t. And the second one arguably didn’t.
