The Coq mailing list

[Benedikt Ahrens <benedikt.ahrens AT gmail.com>]

On 07/04/2021 17:39, Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:53 PM Giselle Reis <giselle.mnr AT gmail.com 
> <mailto:giselle.mnr AT gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I think the 100th message in this thread should be a summary of
>     pro/cons arguments so far.
>
>     Reasons to change:
>     1. People are uncomfortable when saying Coq in an English conversation
>     2. English is the main scientific communication language
>     3. It can be a barrier for people to join the community
>     4. It stems from a silly joke
>
>     Reasons to keep:
>     1. Legacy
>     2. It was developed in France and the name makes sense in this language
>     3. We are not changing other English words because they feel
>     uncomfortable in other languages
>     4. We should do better than giggling at silly words (we do not, but
>     we should)
>
>
> That describes roughly how I saw the question *before* this thread, but 
> as a thread summary, it seems to miss the point.  For me, the biggest 
> takeaway of the thread has been that I was drastically underestimating 
> (1) and (3).  There’s a huge difference between “people feel 
> uncomfortable saying it”, and “people, especially women, get 
> deliberately harassed based on it”.  It’s clear enough from the stories 
> shared that this happens quite widely and consistently, both for 
> established women in the community and for (potential) newcomers.
>
> So at least for me, the thread has changed my view substantially.  I’d 
> still be sad to lose the various nice French associations of the name, 
> the clever double pun with CoC and Coquand, and so on — but it seems 
> hard to argue that those are worth causing harassment/serious discomfort 
> to members of the community, and driving other potential users away.
>
> (The arguments that “we don’t change English words when they’re bad in 
> other languages” seem beside the point — naming things that’ll be used 
> in several languages, people usually *do* take care to avoid bad 
> meanings in those languages.  “Coquina” would be a terrible alternative, 
> for exactly the reason Benedikt points out.  A Swedish restaurant in New 
> York might be named “Café Lund”, but in Delhi, it presumably wouldn’t 
> be.  Avoiding unfortunate meanings in all languages is impossible; 
> avoiding them in (at least) French and English, the main languages of 
> Coq’s community, seems pretty reasonable and worthwhile.)



I would like to thank Talia and Peter, in particular, for their 
contributions to this discussion. I had, mistakenly, thought of this as 
an issue of pruderie (as in points 1 and 3 above) - it is not, as Talia 
describes and Peter emphasizes. It is about preventing people from being 
harrassed. This, to me, trumps any argument in favour of keeping the name.

There are precedents for changing the name of a successful organization 
without damaging the organization itself, cf. the  Washington Football 
Team. (Maybe we can find a less bland name than "The French computer 
proof assistant" for Coq that still does not cause offense.)


Benedikt