"interpreters" vs. "concurrent.interpreters"

Core Development
22

I don’t know in whose interest this decision was made. AFAIK, both the users and maker of the feature weren’t in the know of the name change. Calling this “bikeshedding” and throwing it under the rug doesn’t really help resolve this issue amicably. It’ll just brew dissatisfaction.

edit: And since its such a minor issue, we shouldn’t spend too much time going back and forth. The original name could be restored and everything would be settled.

edit 2: P.S. I was deeply offended when Eric expressed his dissatisfaction with the SC’s decision, and all that was attributed to his views was the term “bikeshedding.” This is a form of gaslighting that I am all too familiar with. Eric is absolutely correct in expressing his disappointment without anyone making him feel as though he is merely complaining about a trivial matter. We should exercise some emotional intelligence in such matters especially coming from leadership such as the SC.

20 Likes
23

I encourage everyone who disagrees with the SC to run for the SC.

1 Like
24

Even if we put aside all the process issues here, and someone stood for SC election based on their opposition to this; by the time they’d be elected, 3.14 would be out and it would be too late to change it (without long deprecation cycles etc.)

Easy to say it’s not relevant if you get to at the same time impose your preferred solution.

At least we have some rationale now, even though I don’t think it stands up to scrutiny. It feels similar in spirit to the presidential signing statements that became en vogue in the US in recent decades – with the stroke of a pen, an “I interpret this law thusly!”, and suddenly some aspect changes at the last moment.

The SC is the highest authority, sure, but this feels like a bad trade-off in terms of precedent, process and erosion of trust. For what, one more or less top-level module names? It’s a pity…

Anyway, I guess we’ll all move on, but I find the arguments post facto for this decision to be really flimsy, and not something that should be left to stand unopposed, if only in the interest of decreasing the likelihood of reoccurrence of a similar situation down the line.

11 Likes