> The terms we pick for our tools matter, and our current default branch name of master is problematic. The word master is too closely related to the word slave
I’ve heard this argument now several times and I’m still confused.
There are several definitions for the word master. The one that seems most appropo for source code management is:
> an original movie, recording, or document from which copies can be made
I don’t see how that one carries any kind of connotation of slavery.
I’ve heard a similar line of reasoning for blacklist/whitelist because “our culture has a connotation of black = bad, white = good” ignoring that that connotation isn’t racial and is cross-cultural. Black sheep are undesirable because you can’t dye their wool. The term blackball is referring to a historical voting practice that had nothing to do with race (and likely where blacklist comes from with whitelist naturally coming many years later).
Can someone please provide a logically valid argument here based on facts? I’m eager to educate myself.
Any question of how much harm is actually done, and whether that much harm is worth restricting speech, is never addressed. If you disagree you are called a bigot/homophobe /whatever who is silencing the voices of persons of color/gender/whatever and creating an unsafe environment. So you must lose your job and be cast out.
I don't think there is one. This push is entirely about ignoring context. The exact same misunderstanding is going through the Magic: The Gathering card game right now:
The five colors of magic are Black, White, Blue, Red, Green. Each is associated with a location (swamp, plains, island, mountain, forest) and have general themes strongly associated with them (corruption/death, order, knowledge/manipulation, destruction, life). Note how none of these have anything to do with race... except several cards have now been deemed racist because "black" and "white" are now being interpreted not as one of the colors of magic, but as a reference to race outside the game.
I'm thinking renaming isn't so much the important bit, but it is an easy first step: what real, impactful changes can we as technologists make happen next?
My concern with this is it’s easy to write off as virtue signaling. Right now is a moment where you can get people who wouldn’t agree with you on board with deep important structural changes. Going after something like this feels like just a waste of energy and distracts from those problems, especially when you’re wrong on the facts
Isn't this is a bit of over correction? Check out the synonyms of the word 'master' https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/master. It has lot of other meanings which does not mean 'master-slave'.
Also by this weird logic, the company mastercard should change their name.
Follow this link to the Twitter thread where the guy (Pete Baudris) who picked the term as used in Git, explains his reasoning.
> "..., removing the problematic term master."
What about my Master of Science degree? Must that be renamed too?
The only thing that is problematic here is the virtue signalling. Please make it stop.
> this helpful writeup from the IETF
This isn't correct. The linked document is a draft submitted to the IETF, and as far as I know, there is 0 actual affiliation with the IETF itself.
If nothing, then all you're doing is empty virtue signaling.
Just asking questions.
We need to change it too, right? There shouldn't exist a martial art master AND the highest levels should be black&white belts.
This is getting insane.
And they'd say "why not do this change if it makes a feel people feel better".