From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 618AC4FDE6C; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 15:14:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788966847; cv=none; b=g3CHXiHajVOuXeycD28wu/m8g0q+UIw2rB1kmhCGm5qDWG1nvf/rVV47OxdZ/l3vBTdT1ORTTACaPAKiPJEduWlk+1/K2Tn3TrKrHv5GM66CB/+KxvTvTGIMlGWSjscg7FZne56GZCAVXq47BzElUkCqAJBZI/7SmAv6djJzCbI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788966847; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5nErqxyy4U/PrC3bwsfzZKm5u+9t+1sJ9lGBoWWFN+k=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=KDj6TTU/s9WTMr0PAj5YyMOJr70QDRFTg6BmESOF4dEosVOYUd7slBFn4HuEsZOSPZjo95FJDmYk9UssKGyF1ikdiGUhRlaE093B2ubsKkltB+YgS6rrJVdP3nYQ0S0BPPRzUDNzMJAWPfALSmHeWGp3TTB6xBDLL8r625fm4uE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=qeTehaVC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="qeTehaVC" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 71351408E5 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1788966845; bh=Xovuw/DMI9TMu0yxaKPoqBHlh/i31hlhlIPmpkJokkA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=qeTehaVCs7MB4/Vzyqx78yyUdYsdHLC6soRjmHmBdMPh/+oFVwYfi93Vd8TnqeMnf mQkGu6AdFOrLRJSScXdBHycoDVNnl13oginUARFLxVlngo42oh1nEAwxvGxQCnY9G9 /ln1YIOlWqlGcRaqzODX3mfAy1nYGkTbIPTjGwyTYzbsW7v3akvSrgKWHGaNX7gu6a GObCQDybOvC85fmwyMq6BistRYDu7TzGlUs6gdV4Eh5ERqogG5a7K5q3WU06niLQsP rshgPsyW8elLlUwA2e480YbSpkYUVbBjauUCbO8Cjirl+AgJtIwv0AgLqNWEzU+eCR aq05xWCMTTgmw== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:814::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71351408E5; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 15:14:05 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Ruben Sutton , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Cc: Shuah Khan , Randy Dunlap , Thorsten Leemhuis , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, regressions@lists.linux.dev, Ruben Sutton Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: process: use gender-neutral pronouns In-Reply-To: <20260909144100.78177-1-ruben@scstudios.tech> References: <20260909144100.78177-1-ruben@scstudios.tech> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 09:14:04 -0600 Message-ID: <87pkymlao3.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Ruben Sutton writes: > Several process documents use gendered pronouns when referring > generically to developers and maintainers. Use singular they instead, > making the language inclusive without changing its meaning. > > Leave pronouns referring to named people and text in attributed > quotations unchanged. > > Assisted-by: LLM > Signed-off-by: Ruben Sutton > --- > Documentation/process/2.Process.rst | 2 +- > Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst | 2 +- > Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst | 2 +- > Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst | 2 +- > Documentation/process/howto.rst | 2 +- > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 2 +- > 6 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) Ouch. I have no objection in principle to this change, but if we try to clean up the whole kernel in this way we're going to have a *lot* of churn and, undoubtedly, some unpleasant discussions at some point. I'm tempted to raise this question at the maintainers summit to see if I can get some sort of project-wide policy laid out. Thanks, jon