To a reasonable approximation, it turns out the author of PR did consistently change gendered language in the project, there just wasn't very much of it to begin with. That wasn't my assumption either (I thought there'd be more such language somewhere), and the biases that created that assumption are surely an interesting "this is how these problems happen" sort of side topic.
Anyway, definitely a lesson in where we choose to direct the benefit of the doubt. In this case, the author of the PR was the one who deserved it, but wasn't the one who received it.
> Anyway, definitely a lesson in where we choose to direct the benefit of the doubt. In this case, the author of the PR was the one who deserved it, but wasn't the one who received it.
"Benefit of the doubt" isn't such a finite resource. If anyone escalating this chain of tomfoolery had applied it, you would have likely found that there was more than enough to go around.
If they missed any gendered pronouns in the now-landed PR, surely they would be discoverable in the current source:
To a reasonable approximation, it turns out the author of PR did consistently change gendered language in the project, there just wasn't very much of it to begin with. That wasn't my assumption either (I thought there'd be more such language somewhere), and the biases that created that assumption are surely an interesting "this is how these problems happen" sort of side topic.Anyway, definitely a lesson in where we choose to direct the benefit of the doubt. In this case, the author of the PR was the one who deserved it, but wasn't the one who received it.
(edit - link formatting)