equality – Terence Eden’s Blog

Book Review: Diversifying Open Source - An Open Standards Playbook for Inclusive and Equitable Tech Projects by Paloma Oliveira ★★★★☆

@edent — Fri, 06 Feb 2026 12:34:05 +0000

It is refreshing to read a political polemic which contains useful actions the reader can take. Too many books about the social problems with technology end up being a diagnosis with no cure.

Paloma Oliveira's new book (with technical review by my friend Dawn Foster) is a deep dive into how we can all make Open Source more inclusive and equitable.

Unlike most tech books, it doesn't follow the usual pattern of restricting itself to the US hegemony. It is very focussed on the EU and the needs of people around the world. It is clear in identifying many of the problems which arise when people say they just want to focus on tech, not politics:

When projects focus purely on technical excellence without considering accessibility, they create implicit barriers. Documentation written only in English, community discussions held during North American business hours, or development environments that require high-end hardware all reflect choices that determine who can participate—though these choices often remain unexamined.

This is profoundly important. The book isn't afraid to be challenging. It links the way companies extract value from the commons to the way colonisers extracted value from the lands they "discovered".

There are a few missteps which I didn't care for. While it starts as very casually written, it quickly finds itself getting into the weeds of political philosophy. I think that's a necessary evil. But I don't know how easily people will be convinced by passages like:

Bratton notes secessionist withdrawal in traditional territories and consolidation domains in stacked hemispheric, the continuing expansions of nebular sovereignties, and the reform of conventional States into regional platforms.

Similarly, there are a few "just-so" stories which are fictional parables. I think they would have been more convincing as actual case-studies.

I did find myself skipping some of the background in order to get to the parts I found more interesting. The chapter on "Political Rhetoric and Institution Validation" felt a bit out of place and I didn't get much from it.

But, after all that theory, there is a lot of practical advice. From how to structure your README to how to communicate change to your community. Even better, all the templates and resources are on GitHub.

It is thoroughly referenced and gave me lots of new rabbit-holes to follow Rather pleasingly, it cites my 2020 blog post "Please Stop Inventing New Software Licences" as an example of the ways in which corporates often try to stifle open source.

If you want to help Open Source succeed, you owe it to yourself to grab a copy of this book.

Book Review: No Bath But Plenty Of Bubbles: An Oral History of the Gay Liberation Front 1970-73 by Lisa Power ★★★★☆

@edent — Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:07:47 +0000

The Gay Liberation Front dragged homosexuality out of the closet, onto the streets and into the public eye. Its London supporters held the first gay demonstrations, organized the first Pride march and ran the first public gay dances in Britain. The Front contained an alliance of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transsexuals long before ‘queer’ was fashionable, and challenged homophobia before we had a word for it.

Their direct action and street theatre were the envy of the rest of the revolutionary counterculture, their politics the most diverse, their communes the wildest and their arguments the loudest. In two short years, the Gay Liberation Front created the conditions for a lesbian and gay movement for generations to come and then imploded into fragments that became our newspapers, helplines and activist groups.

This is an interesting and, at times, challenging book about an aspect of modern British history. They certainly don't teach about the GLF in schools!

As well as being a thorough examination of the activities of GLF member, it also asks some important questions about the ways Queer culture has been appropriated and sanitised by the mainstream. Is equal marriage just replicating the worst aspects of an abusive hertropatriarchal relationship? Does capitalism rely on the oppression of an underclass?

There's an inherent tension between people who see gay liberation as separate from women's liberation. And those that see racial equality as distinct from gay equality.

In many ways, the GLF succeeded. There is less legal discrimination now - and attitudes to LGBT+ people are more positive than they've ever been. Some of their organising tactics - like using breakout groups to manage large scale decision making - are replicated in many communities.

And, in some ways, they failed. Drag shows on TV are rarely feature revolutionary political discussion. Street theatre and consciousness raising have been replaced with soap operas and corporate diversity training. Trans-women are still routinely excluded from "women only" spaces. And society has not yet dissolved into a gender-free free-love love-in.

The street theatre and "happenings" seem a little childish when looked through the lens of history. As Peter Cook put it, "those wonderful Berlin cabarets which did so much to stop the rise of Hitler and prevent the outbreak of the second world war..."

Do stunts help change mainstream opinion? Some of the "zaps" (as was the parlance) were aimed at disruption rather than conversion. That certainly feels great to the participants, but has limited value.

In the end, the book reminds us that there is a heck of a lot of admin involved in starting and maintaining a revolution. And sometimes the revolution requires people to put aside their differences to achieve a common goal.

It is a wonderful - and occasionally upsetting - wander through a transformative part of recent history.

On the negative side, there are occasional minor transcription errors from where the book has been copied from the paper original. The formatting makes it slightly hard to work out who is talking, and whether a passage is a quote or commentary. At times, it feels like you're reading endless committee minutes.

Overall, it's an important read for anyone - queer or straight - who wants to understand the background to the current struggle for inclusivity.

Here's the GLF Manifesto from the 1970s. How many of its demands have been met, do you think?

that all discrimination against gay people, male and female, by the law, by employers, and by society at large, should end.
that all people who feel attracted to a member of their own sex be taught that such feeling are perfectly valid.
that sex education in schools stop being exclusively heterosexual.
that psychiatrists stop treating homosexuality as though it were a sickness, thereby giving gay people senseless guilt complexes.
that gay people be as legally free to contact other gay people, though newspaper ads, on the streets and by any other means they may want as are heterosexuals.
that police harassment should cease right now.
that employers should no longer be allowed to discriminate against anyone on account of their sexual preferences.
that the age of consent for gay males be reduced to the same as for straight.
that gay people be free to hold hands and kiss in public, as are heterosexuals.

You can read more about Lisa Power on Wikipedia.

Default Ordering Of Title Options

@edent — Tue, 28 Apr 2020 11:00:22 +0000

I was signing up to a website the other day, and it wanted to know my title. Here are the options it offered me: Look, I get it. If I'm ever daft enough to undertake a PhD and masochistic enough to complete it - I am going to demand that everyone addresses me as Doctor ~~Who~~ ~~Doom~~ ~~Octopus~~.

But why this ordering? Why distinguish between male and female doctors? Let's see if the source code holds any answers.

As many of you may have guessed, the website is German. Herr Doctor and Frau Doctor are distinct titles. In some societies, it is extremely rude to refuse to use someone's correct title.

But, again, why are the titles presented in this way?

Next time you fill in an official form which asks for sex information, notice that it is almost always in the format Male / Female. Why is "male" first? It isn't alphabetical - the normal way to order things. And it's not in demographic proportion - there are more women than men.

If the above list were in alphabetic order, in English it would have "Dr (Fem)" first. In German it would be "Divers" first. So who made the choice to put it in this specific order? And why isn't the first title, for example, Frau Professor?

What choices have been made, and why have they been made?

Very.co.uk

Here's another example, the British shopping site Very.co.uk I suspect that they know their user base is predominantly female. But do their demographics also skew towards married? Is that why they've put Mrs first?

I recommend reading Kate Roberts' "Women On Top: Inappropriate Dropdowns" - which takes a proper look at the usability of dropdown ordering.

British Airways

BA have a weird grouping. After the "normal" titles is a hodge-podge of Captains, Rabbis, and Reverends. What's the order? Why are some grouped alphabetically and others not? How easy is it to quickly find the correct title on this list?

Emirates

Emirates are quite happy to use young women as part of their advertising images. But "Miss" comes at the bottom of their title list.

Who are we leaving out?

The approach by British store Fortnum and Mason is extremely inclusive.

But they're still sticking Mr on top...! Lord comes before Lady etc.

And they're missing my title - "Supreme Commander".

Are titles important?

I'm torn. I remember as a teenager receiving my first letter addressed to Mr Eden. I was so proud. But today, everything seems to be so casual. Call centres refer to me by my first name. My bank sends emails addressing me as "Dear Terence".

Of course, I'm cisgendered and only rarely misgendered when speaking to people. It doesn't distress me when people get my title wrong.

It comes down to why you collect title. Do you really need to know the gender of your user or their marital status? Is knowing educational attainment or religion necessary to good functionality?

Rather than offering a drop-down of limited options - which is guaranteed to exclude someone - perhaps it makes more sense to just ask the user how they would like to be addressed.

Give your users a free-form text box - and make it optional.

When do symbols stop being political?

@edent — Thu, 16 Jan 2020 07:53:23 +0000

I am a civil servant in the UK - this is my personal blog. As part of my job, I have to follow the Civil Service Code which, among other things, says I'm not allowed to be political at work.

Political Impartiality

You must:
serve the government ... no matter what your own political beliefs are
comply with any restrictions that have been laid down on your political activities

You must not:

act in a way that is determined by party political considerations

allow your personal political views to determine any advice you give or your actions.

That's probably a good thing. I should execute my duties without regard to my personal political feelings. If an elected official asks me to do something, I shouldn't refuse or undermine them if I voted for a different party.

If I turned up to work wearing a t-shirt saying "Vote for the Whig Party!" I'd probably be sent home.

But what if I wore a badge which said "Votes For Women" and displayed the suffragette colours? Now that women have the vote, is the symbol still political?

Well, the suffragette flag has done a tour of civil service buildings - and senior staff have happily posed with it.

Undoubtedly there are probably still a few people who think extending the vote to women was a bad idea and should be rescinded. But that is so far outside of the mainstream that I don't think a complaint would be upheld.

What about other political symbols?

I'm proud to wear a rainbow lanyard at work. It is a sign off allyship with my LGBT+ colleagues (other acronyms are available). It is a visible sign that as an employer - and as an individual - we will stand up for equal rights, and tackle homophobia and transphobia.

Is that a political symbol?

The USA banned the flying of rainbow flags from its embassies. Some modern political candidates can be quite open in their desire to roll back equal rights. It is a political symbol, right?

A quick conversation with some of my gay and bi friends found a split opinion. "Pride is a riot - and the rainbow flag is a symbol of political protest" said one. Someone else thought it was so mainstream due to rainbow-washing (where companies use Pride as a marketing tool) that it was meaningless.

Another pointed out this part of the Civil Service Code:

You must carry out your responsibilities in a way that is fair, just and equitable and reflects the Civil Service commitment to equality and diversity

(Emphasis added)

Equality is a political position. But it is one which is (fairly) mainstream and thus has the appearance of neutrality.

But nothing is truly neutral.

My personal political views on universal suffrage and gay rights may happen to be reasonably mainstream, but I've chatted with people at work who are uncomfortable wearing a rainbow. Some because they think people will think they're gay, some because it might be seen as appropriation, and some because they don't believe in the cause behind it.

Thankfully the latter are rare.

But it doesn't escape my mind that symbols have meanings, and nothing is truly neutral.

🏳️‍🌈