The Coq mailing list

["Harley D. Eades III" <harley.eades AT gmail.com>]

I agree. I also just want to add that I stand with those in favor of a full rebranding: new name and logo. There have been enough valid points given to support this. Harassment of any kind is not okay, and having a barrier to entry into our community is not okay.  

We should strive to do better, and we can do better. 

Best, Harley Eades 

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 3:30 AM Benedikt Ahrens <benedikt.ahrens AT gmail.com> wrote:

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