I have to wonder if you are male.. I'm a transgender woman, and honestly before transitioning I would have thought the same thing. But that's because I was really lacking in perspective. I didn't know what it was like to be a vulnerable, marginalized minority.. and if you've never been vulnerable and marginalized (like women and minorities are), things like this seem like "no big deal" when they actually are in fact a big deal. You've probably never been threatened by someone in a sexual context, so hearing "cock" doesn't have the same effect on you that it has on me.

I've been shocked by the daily harassment and hostility that I have to put up with now. The jokes people make about me that they think are "no big deal". People can be unapologetically terrible, and yes pre-pubescent level harassment happens all the time, even in professional environments. It's just not something that you can understand unless you've been in that position.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I'm downplaying anything here, I'm not trying to. I'm simply trying to understand how "harassment" comes into play by a project having a "funny" name. If someone simply utters the word "Coq" it's hardly harassment, but instead the authors/suggesters of the change seems to indicate that people have been harassed over the projects name, I'm simply looking for understanding and/or examples of that happening.

And yes, if it's important, I'm "part" of a couple of marginalized groups myself, but I'm not sure how that's important here.

Well you're acting like you understand what they're talking about when they say the word harassment when obviously you don't. I don't either, but with all the harassment I experience on a daily basis, I have no trouble imagining situations that would fit the definition of harassment that could come about because of this name. Acting like you understand this whole situation, and the point of view of everyone involved make me surprised to hear that you are a marginalized person.

> you're acting like you understand what they're talking about when they say the word harassment [...] Acting like you understand this whole situation

No, I'm genuinely asking about what they are talking about. I'm literally asking clarifying questions here in order to find out more. I'm not stating how anything is, but merely wonder and want to learn more.

I do experience harassment as well, but not in the form of hearing "Oh, you use Coq so you must be a cock" every day, which is why I ask how the project name can be used as harassment.

How is any woman supposed to specialize in this language without hearing jokes like "oh she's an expert in cock".. The fact that you're trying to assert your point of view over the people who are actually involved in the situation, and chose to use the word harassment, makes me feel like you don't understand these issues as well as you think you do.

> The fact that you're trying to assert your point of view over the people

What? I'm sorry but we're talking way past each other and seem to be having two different conversations here. I'm inquiring about the usage of "harassment" from the authors of the proposed change, and you take it as I'm "asserting my point of view"?

Please do try to spread flame somewhere else but not here. I'm now done trying to explain myself to you.

Why did you immediately jump into questioning the validity of their use of the word harassment? Do you have any reason at all to doubt their claims?

How am I spreading flame? This is something I feel passionate about because these issues affect my life.

Even if harassment isn't commonplace, hearing Coq pronounced can be jarring. It is less than ideal that you need to be mindful of how you use the name of a tool that is the gold standard for a particular niche.

Others posted similar things, but imagine that you're a female PhD candidate and your male advisor asks you: "How familiar are you with Coq?" or "Are you good with Coq?"

Sure, the advisor could have asked "How familiar are you with the theorem prover Coq?" but it shouldn't be necessary to do so.

It seems petty and childish to be considering a name change over this, but it is far from unprecedented (e.g. "Beaver College" changed their name to "Arcadia University" in 2001). Having a more utterable name can lead to more widespread use and discussion of the tool with laypeople.

First of all, you can just correctly pronounce it with oh instead of uh if you don't want it to sound like the slang.

Second, Coq sounds kinda like a slang word in English, so it must be changed; bit is pronounced exactly like the slang word for the same thing in French, but you would be laughed at if you suggest changing bit something less offensive like bigit? For many of us non-anglophones, the creeping English-language supremacy is neither natural and inevitable nor welcome.

If by "correct" pronunciation you mean the French one, the vowel is actually somewhere in between "coke" and "cock". English speakers might hear either word when the French word is spoken.

> Others posted similar things, but imagine that you're a female PhD candidate and your male advisor asks you: "How familiar are you with Coq?" or "Are you good with Coq?"

Yeah, a bit awkward for about 5 seconds until both parties know what you're talking about, because of context.

Is that what the authors are referring to as "harassment" or where does the whole harassment come from? That's my biggest question here. I have nothing against people wanting it to change, I just want to understand the reasoning behind it, and how even people manage to harass others via a project name.

I think it's instructive that s/coq/git/ , s/(fe)?male// and the situation feels similar to how I felt with git a decade ago.

Next, we all stop referring to the different ends of connectors as male and female. Way to suggestive for adults to use

We prefer plug and receptacle.

I worked at a FAANG company for a while where a manager would walk in each morning and loudly announce, "Good morning all you motherfuckers."

Professionalism is hardly universal.

True, and I understand how that can be bothersome for some people. On the other hand, I'd rather have someone that swears like a sailor but is otherwise a decent human being when it comes to the things that really matter (i.e. not imposing undue pressure on you, compassion, treating your fairly even in the context of a frayed relationship (firing, etc)).

To me "professionalism" doesn't mean anything. Just try to be good. Be on time, not because it's professional, but because wasting other people's time is disrespectful.

My problem with "professionalism" is that you can be "professional" by not swearing, wearing a nice suit and never raising your voice - but still being a complete asshole (in particular when the going gets hard). I've met people like that.

I feel like there's hardly any correlation between swearing and "decency" (acting like a good human being). In fact, there might even be a slightly positive correlation, since people will tend to cut you much less slack for such egregious behavior (unless you are at the very top of the chain, I suppose).

There have actually been studies that show a positive link between profanity and honest behaviour/integrity[1]

The study I've linked below is slightly flawed, but it does provide a small nugget of evidence to your anecdote.

[1]: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/publication-pdf...

I agree, professionalism isn't necessarily a mark of someone who is a good work partner. Professionalism doesn't imply compassion at all.

But also, some folks (for reasons that may or may not resonate with others) might not enjoy working in an environment where they are called 'motherfuckers', 'little shits', etc.

I agree, and this kind of insensitivity is specifically harmful to inclusion efforts. It’s not so much that people in underrepresented groups (women, POC, trans, disabled, etc) are necessarily more sensitive to all crass or unprofessional language. But it can foster an environment where people are comfortable saying inappropriate things, uncomfortable being challenged, and have enough power that addressing it is or feels too risky for anyone who finds it hurtful or offensive.

All that said, I think a good balance is

1. Embrace a level of crassness that feels friendly and comfortable for all. In some cases this means very little or no crassness. In most cases it shouldn’t mean anything that would be posted on CollegeHumor or whatever.

2. Clearly set expectations that any such humor is expected to be in good faith, which implies both actively understanding commonly hurtful humor to avoid; and encouraging, embracing and actively addressing feedback when anything is unintentionally hurtful; actively disincentivizing and penalizing bad faith behavior.

All of that said: I personally have no gripe with being called a “fucker” but I’d prefer “motherfucker” not be used in a workplace for pretty much arbitrary reasons. I have no problem at all being called a “little shit” (or any other size of shit). Applying the principles above, if I were starting or growing a group/team/org, on first usage I’d probably invite people to say if it made them feel uncomfortable, or if it would make them uncomfortable had it been said to them. If anyone said so, or even just hesitated, I’d suggest that I’m comfortable with the personal interaction in private but it shouldn’t be a part of public communication for the group or private communication without express consent. And I’d invite anyone who felt that wasn’t being honored to come to me if they weren’t comfortable speaking up.

All of thaaaaat said: my original intent was to end this comment jokingly inviting all of HN to call me a fucker or any size of shit, but I couldn’t think of a way to do it and allow downthread discussion without contradicting my own principles. So if anyone here wants to call me names for fun or just to get your rude fix, my email link is public and a pretty quick set of clicks away: profile > personal site > resume

My fiance worked at Oracle, and her manager routinely offered to "mushroom stamp" paperwork that was submitted for his approval.

Urgh. That’s immediate dismissal from his post and a brisk escort from the building for gross misconduct in my book.

Flat out disgusting, not to mention illegal.

LOL! That's a phrase I haven't heard in awhile.

Well, people talk differently, that's not too bad.

I'm talking about the harassment part here, not professionalism in general.

It became a blanket approval to address anyone on the team as a motherfucker.

Sure, one crass dude is one crass dude. One crass manager sets the tone for the team.

Pretty soon people starting pushing the boundaries on how insulting they could be.

Well some people are just linguistically challenged monolinguals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_(bird)

Can you explain the Git thing? It keeps coming up but I've never heard of an English word "git." I looked it up and it seems it exists, but is it common? I've lived in this country for 30 years and have never heard it in a nib-technical context.

It is British English and very common in the UK. That's why Linus claims he "named it after himself". Means bastard or horrid person, basically.

Oddly enough, British people don't go around demanding git be renamed. We know how to handle words having multiple meanings.

Yeah, but sexual words in particular lead to harassment of women by strangers. I'd love to fix society so that this becomes false, but it's not how society currently works.

I'll keep that in mind though if I work with folks in the UK at some point.

You realise men get harassed by strangers too? All the time, about stupid shit, and rare is the day that anything is done about it.

It's really quite self centred to create new problems for the entire world because of a taxi driver. Think about how many people will now have to double search for things, or change scripts, or waste time because they didn't realise new tool=old tool. It's a huge new technical debt being created here. Coq is software, it's been around for many years, so the old name will never die. People will be dealing with half baked renames and duplications forever.

Immature people will find ways to be immature and annoying no matter what - the difference between adults and children is we're supposed to be able to deal with it and keep things in proportion. That doesn't seem to be happening here and it's a pity.

I do not believe you are engaging in good faith, given that I just explained to you very clearly and concisely that this is not just about me.

And yet your demands have contributed to that decision.

Please don't accuse others of "not engaging in good faith" when they just outlined to you the rational basis for their viewpoints. It's just an ad-hominem insult. My engagement is in entirely good faith: I think you (and others making these demands) are refusing to consider the impact of your demands on other people, externalizing costs unnecessarily and generally acting in anti-social ways, whilst claiming the exact opposite.

I didn't demand anything. I contributed my story to a decision that I along with the rest of the community will make democratically.

> It's hard for me to imagine anyone getting harassed over this

The other option (which may be what you meant by #1) is that we're playing fast and loose with the term "harassment". It sometimes appears as if a mere mention of something sexual or scatological constitutes harassment. Similarly, it seems as though anything falling below an ideal standard of professionalism is labeled as "harassment". I worry about the lack of nuance and conflation of ideas.

Indeed. So do I. Although I personally prefer to be polite and caring, and avoid what might make others uncomfortable, and hate real harassers (bullies), I actually am annoyed and concerned by the pandemic of hypersensitivity and political correctness in the Internet.

I believe there is absolutely nothing anybody might say what would actually insult me and although I can't expect others to be the same, they should develop this skills to a reasonable level before connecting to the Internet or going out.