[MPlayer-cvslog] CVS: main AUTHORS,1.176,1.177

[The Wanderer]

Rich Felker wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 09:18:06AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> Now that I come back to this again, I notice that there are
>> actually two separate issues involved: which name you sort on
>> first, and which name you actually list first. In the former case,
>> I stand very strongly behind giving the surname priority over the
>> personal name; in the latter case, I have no strong preference one
>> way or the other.
> 
> Why do you stand strongly behind this?

Mainly (as far as I can recall on as little sleep as I've yet gotten),
for the reasons of duplication probability which I gave before,

> It has absolutely no usefulness to us. It only makes it MORE
> DIFFICULT to find the name you want since you can't just scroll thru.
> You have to use the / key and explicitly search! Unless you know
> people by their family names, which is nonsense...

Nonsense to you, maybe. That is precisely how I expect name lists to be
sorted, so it is the way I expect to search. Thus, having the list
sorted in that fashion makes it *easier* - not harder - for me to find
the name I'm looking for.

>>> The primary reason behind the 'rule' you talk about is pure
>>> patriarchialism. Nothing more. And it's lame.
>> 
>> ...I fail utterly to see how "patriarchalism" has anything to do
>> with it. Provincialism, maybe, but...
> 
> Considering the family (and especially the MALE PARENT'S FAMILY) as
> more relevant/important than the given name of the person.

Eh. Maybe. Not every surname is chosen on that principle, but I can at
least see where you're getting this from.

> Trying to group people in a listing by family.

I still don't see how that would be considered patriarchalism.
Tribalism, maybe, but...

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.