Avoid dysphemisms

[erikvanoosten]

I was reading the inclusive language guide at https://docs.scala-lang.org/contribute/inclusive-language-guide.html. I have 2 points of feedback. I initially posted this on Discord but then I noticed I could do a pull request. So here it is.

Re. blacklist/whitelist. Such lists are often used to regulate access. Therefore I propose we suggest the alternative 'allowlist/denylist' as it is probably appropriate in more circumstances. This is also the suggestion done from the linked page https://github.com/dialpad/inclusive-language.

[SethTisue]

ping @sjrd

[SethTisue]

perhaps both "include/exclude" and "allow/deny" should be mentioned?

I do agree that "allow/deny" is what I would normally reach for first.

[sjrd]

I have reviewed the form of the contribution.

But I don't really have the liberty to make a review of the content. The content was discussed and approved by quite a number of stakeholders. I don't know how we should proceed with changes here.

/cc @darjutak @ValeriePe

[erikvanoosten]

Thanks for the review Sébastien.

But I don't really have the liberty to make a review of the content. The content was discussed and approved by quite a number of stakeholders. I don't know how we should proceed with changes here.

I thought I read somewhere feedback was requested. But that must have been my imagination because I cannot find such a request anywhere.

Anyways, the Scala Center could collect feedback for a couple of months and then use the same process as was used to create this document the first time.

If however you think the value is not worth the effort, I propose we just close this PR and pretend nothing happened.

[SethTisue]

I thought I read somewhere feedback was requested

Might have been me in a chat room :-)

Personally I think the adjustments in this PR are modest and uncontroversial enough to be mergeable, especially since the document as a whole is a collection of suggestions and recommendations rather than anything that's actually binding on anybody.

except that I do think that this should be adjusted:

both "include/exclude" and "allow/deny" should be mentioned

partly because the include/exclude suggestion already went through this external-review process.

Regardless, whatever the Center decides will of course be fine with me.

[erikvanoosten]

except that I do think that this should be adjusted:

both "include/exclude" and "allow/deny" should be mentioned

Done.

[SethTisue]

I'm hitting "approve", but as per discussion, someone from the Center needs to make the final call here

[sjrd]

We discussed this in a team-wide meeting at the Scala Center, and we collectively approve these changes.

Thank you for your contribution. :)