[systemvoltage]

Those are all great suggestions and that’s what I would use.

However, if you look under the facade, when talking to your colleagues and with people around you, “sucks” is very much a common, daily word.

This is the way I look at it. Sure, it’s not professional. But, the author is not trying to be professional I suppose. I am not going to debate it’s appropriateness.

I want to be clear, the point I’m debating is not about “sucks” per se, but any general criticism. Whenever you need disclaimers, it could mean two things 1) Rude or unacceptable title 2) Society expects unreasonable conformity and adherence to a particular language, set of values, etc.

In the case 2), we had a huge debate about “master vs main” branch. There are many examples.

We’d be better off dialing down the conformity and be more inclusive. Check in deeper about intentions and faith, than the facade of language. If the author used the language you suggested, but had bad intentions, that’s a bigger problem.

[autarch]

I don't think the issue is being professional or not. If the author's goal is to convince people who work on Hugo to improve the docs, then it's best to avoid triggering a defensive emotional reaction. The title as it stands will likely trigger hurt feelings, which is usually followed by being defensive or ignoring the substance of the criticism. That's simply unproductive.

[systemvoltage]

The only thing I agree here is that better language wouldn't hurt. I don't think most people get "triggered". That's a vocal minority perpetuating a culture demanding a sort of conformity against their definition of "micro-aggressions" and "triggers" with no regards to a larger consultation with the society.

[autarch]

I didn't use the words "triggered" or "micro-aggressions", so what exactly are you quoting?

Saying "your project sucks" or "your project docs suck" is not a _micro_-aggression, it's a macro-aggression, or as I prefer, being a jerk. I think most people would react negatively to that sort of statement.