On 2/12/2020 11:56 AM, Nate Johnston wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:57:41PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Evrard wrote:
Personally I could see how 'Wodewick' could be perceived as a joke on speech-impaired people I agree that at first sight this looks very bad. Which should be taken into consideration. However, an extra fact/trivia for Wodewick (for
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 17:39 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: those who didn't know, like I was, as it's not mentioned on the wiki): Terry Jones (director of the movie) had himself rhotacism.
So IMO, the presence of the (bad?) joke in the movie itself is a proof of Jones' openness. One thing that the Internet - social media particularly but not exclusively - does exceptionally well is to present ideas, concepts, or occurrences with all of the surrounding context stripped away. I think that the only way to be successful is to select names that stand solid without any context and judged from multiple cultural perspectives.
I personally object to Wuhan for this reason. Even if we were to say that we choose the name to honor the victims of this tragedy, that context would be stripped away in the transmission and there would be plenty of people who would come to the conclusion that we were making light of what is happening, or worse that companies that build products based on OpenStack would be making profits from that name. These are terrible thoughts, for sure, but regrettably we have to look at how people could percieve it, not how we mean it to be.
Nate
Nate, I am in agreement that the name needs to hold up without context and under scrutiny from multiple perspectives. So, Wuhan is not a good choice. It also is dangerous to use a name associated with a still evolving situation. All, I think we need to choose a name that doesn't require explanation. I think that Wodewick fails that test. Jay