Re: Boost Asset Stewardship Review begins 09/03 (Updated)

From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-06 21:30:23

pt., 6 wrz 2024 o 17:38 Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):

> El 06/09/2024 a las 14:31, John Maddock via Boost escribió:
> > Inclusivity
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > [...] And of course inclusivity also extends further than gender: to
> > non-native
> > English speakers to name but one.
>
> I'm very glad that you raised the issue of participation barriers for
> people with
> low (or no) English skills. Being a non-native English speaker myself,
> language
> inclusivity (not to be confused with inclusive language) has always
> interested
> me. The topic has not been discussed very often here, perhaps, if I may
> venture,
> because it does not rank high in the Anglosphere's political debate.
>
> For example, participation in the project from people from East Asian
> countries
> is very low in proportion to their usage of C++ and Boost, which I think
> can be
> largely attributed to linguistic barriers. Some countries from the area
> (China,
> Japan) struggle to increase English proficiency among their citizens, with
> limited success. There are brave efforts to bring Boost closer to local
> audiences,
> such as boostjp from Akira Takahashi and others:
>
> https://boostjp.github.io/index.html
>
> which provides documentation in Japanese on Boost and some of its
> libraries,
> plus a study group and an online forum oriented to Japanese-speaking
> developers. This effort should be recognized, supported and linked from
> boost.org, IMHO.
>
> It would be great if we started a conversation on how we can make
> Boost more accessible and appealing to developers who are not fluent enough
> in the English language to engage in the project in its current form.
> Possibly
> by reaching out first to the people running boostjp and similar
> initiatives.
>

Joaquin, thanks for bringing this up. Let me offer my perspective, of
another non-native English speaker, on the matter.
The only aspect of "inclusivity" that I actually understand and that
resonates with me is, "do not intimidate newcomers with using
business-specific jargon and TLAs (Three-Letter Acronyms)".

There is a good reason why we use jargon and acronyms, so I would never
think of imposing on anyone any restriction in this aspect, but I observe
that there is a trade-off here. If you use jargon, you communicate more
effectively and comfortably, you build a local culture, but at the same
time you intimidate and potentially put off the newcomers.

In Poland, where I come from, we were taught as children at that time that
you should learn English in order to get a decent job, and so many of us
did. But even then, when I joined a couple of discussion groups, I had a
hard time understanding the discussion group jargon: FWIW, AFAICT, IMHO,
LOL. Now, add to that C++-specific acronyms: can NTBS cause UB as NTTPs?
Even now, after years of participation, I have trouble understanding new
acronyms as they come. From the recent discussions on the future of Boost,
I collected: BDFL, OG, SJW. I also had a hard time even googling terms "
bussin" and "fam".

I know some communities address this by publishing a list of acronyms and
jargon words they use.

Regards,
&rzej;