My favourite thing is asking them to define woke.
IMHO, you are woke if you exclude/damage who does not think exactly like you, and later also who thinks like you but he/she is not excluding/damaging the people you put in the black-list.
So it is a rather toxic and dangerous movement, resembling a little the Reign of Terror in France.
OpenDistro Leap/Tumbleweed/Aeon/...
OpenDistro should identify the community tools used for building the various distro. One distinctive aspect of OpenSUSE is how it is easy to create new distro, or custom repositories. So it should be the focus of the new naming scheme.
You can try also https://gtoolkit.com/ The language is the same of Pharo, but the GUI is better, IMHO.
Glamorous Toolkit/Pharo are better than CL as IDE/GUI. It is more like a "video-game", because the IDE is a first class citizen and you can customize it. For example you can notice if some classes are not passing some tests, because there are flags in the IDE.
As language I prefer CL, because metaprogramming (i.e. macro) are more explicit and clear respect Smallatalk approach.
In CL you have something like "(some-dsl-prefix ...)" and all the things following the "(some-dsl-prefix ...)" are clearly is the specified DSL. You can expand the macro, for seeing its semantic.
In Smalltalk you had to check the metaclass that created the object, but objects can be created in different point respect their usage, so good luck. Then you had to inspect if the behavior of some standard method is modified/customized. CL macro run at compile-time, while Smalltalk metaprogramming code run at run-time, using reflection, and customization of metaclasses.
A CL macro has a better view of the DSL code, because it can walk in it. I don't remember how Smalltalk solves this.
I tried Smalltalk few years ago, so maybe I missed something.
This type of workflow is natively supported by https://github.com/facebook/sapling, https://github.com/jiju-git and https://github.com/arxanas/git-branchless. Both these tools can interact with normal git repositories.
The idea is to divide commits between public commits that are untouchable and under-dev-commits that can be amended, split, merged, reorderdered, and so on. One can play freely with under-dev-commits, because every modification done on them is locally registered, and one can navigate in a tree of undo.
I agree on nearly all, and I admit of not being informed on the details. I disagree on this: I'm not accusing the women, because I'm in favor of a fair process against Andrew Tate, not against the women; the number of women against one man is not a proof, because despite the common sense, in many cases of false accusations, there were two or more women against a man, and they were lying.
I don't like Andrew Tate, but probably I would not like also a lot of women he is frequenting. There are possibilities that they are blackmailers and not victims. So, I hope that Andrew Tate will be convicted on the base of proved facts, and not because he was not able to disprove the words of his accusers. "Proving innocence" can be an hard things to do, if you are considered guilty until proven innocent.
The definition was incomplete and a provocation. KKK acted in the name of white supremacy, while woke acts in the name of Social Justice. Obviously woke culture is a lot lot lot less violent of KKK. KKK were criminals. With woke culture at maximum you will do some years in prison due to false accusations, because you should "believe all women", or you will loose the job, and you will never find similar jobs, for some nasty comment you done on some platform when you were a teenager... It can be compared also to McCarthyism.
In any case, the negative part of woke culture is the fanatism. Without the fanatism aspect, I will call a woke, an activist into social justice themes. I like activists. I'm scared from fanatics.