Subject: Re: [bug#76407] [GCD] Rename the default branch

From: Ekaitz Zarraga <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 19:43:20 +0100

Hi

On 2025-03-23 17:47, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:

>> The interesting way you are putting it is like you are trying to make
>> me think my opinion or feelings are not that important, which is
>> exactly my point against the change. I still didn't get any real
>> person telling me they are hurt by the word 'master'.
> What Simon is actually trying to achieve is to tell you that your
> opinion is not *the only one* that matters.  It may well be, that
> everyone who thus far told you they are hurt by the word 'master' are
> actually bots (beep boop) and/or engaging in US imperialism.  But there
> also exists a chance that you have thus far merely avoided –
> deliberately or otherwise – any real person who could convince you that
> it's hurtful. > Let's take a survey to get some actual numbers.  According to [1],
> master appears inoffensive to about 80% of people and offensive to less
> than 10%, with the rest abstaining.  Clearly, this must mean that
> branch naming is a non-issue, right?  Right?  Sadly, it's not that
> simple.  For if you take a moment to consider that these people _are
> real_ and they feel offended by the word master, perhaps there is
> something offensive about it.

This is not as a solid argument as you think.

The survey was done years after the renaming campaign started, letting 
the idea of "master is bad" sink, the amount of people that took part is 
too low, and reddit is a biased community. Still, it only got a 10%. And 
the first comment in the thread, that has hundreds of upvotes says:

"I am a black man and have no issue with the word "master" in the 
context of git branches. I am intelligent enough to know the difference 
between an electronic hierarchy and human suffrage and racism."

On the other hand, the fact that some people is offended by something 
doesn't mean that thing is offensive. You can get offense on anything in 
the world, that doesn't mean you are right.

Sadly, there's more than a 10% of population in the world (probably more 
around a 60% or so) that think trans people don't exist and are offended 
by them. Does that mean they are right? Does it mean we should please 
them, removing all references to trans people from the world?

>> I'm "hurt" by this because this is the result of US American (moral)
>> imperialism at work, and I reject it, as a citizen of the world.
> Changes happen.  Even if this were the result of US imperialism – which
> for the record you keep postulating without evidence; at least as far
> as I can see – you would have to find a way of dealing with it.  Now,
> you can choose to ignore that Git allows you to change the default
> branch name and reject any proposal to do so, but I think not everyone
> will do the same.

I say it is related with the US because this originated on a campaign by 
an US corporation that exported the US thinking of trying to comfort 
others, censor swear words in tv and so on. I could talk for long about 
why that is related to their religion and so on...

In any case, the point here is we should choose our fate. They imposed 
enough things on us, like the language, and we should now just apply 
this change because some US corporation lobbied for it and made some 
people think there was anything wrong with one specific word of the 
dictionary. You chose to follow them, and I chose to reject it.

(Some had already shared their concerns about Guix's pronunciation, are 
we also open to change the project's name?)

> As for only pleasing imaginary people, have you stopped to consider
> that those in favour of the change could be real people and not
> displeased by the change?  Because it could just so happen to be that
> some folks would prefer another name over master.  Personally, I'm one
> of them.  I would feel quite happy with 'main' or 'trunk'; even
> 'stable' if we could make that guarantee.  Now, I am aware, that this
> is all a preference and to an extent de gustibus, but I think we can
> come to a shared preference that maximizes happiness and minimizes harm
> for Guix contributors.

I understand that you can *prefer* something else. I also prefer to talk 
in spanish and here we are. If I knew german, I would be happy to talk 
to you in german if we both agreed to it in those terms: preference.

If you told me that speaking in any other language than german could 
offend people or hurt them I would reject your arguments, which is what 
I'm doing here.

I don't care to use master, main, guix, or anything else. That's not the 
problem I'm pointing to.

Maybe the GDC should be called: Let's change the branch name to 
something I like more. It would be fairer that way, but it may have more 
risk to be rejected.

>> This discussion has been just some people agreeing and
>> not explaining while they called others fascists or told them they
>> SHOULD KNOW why we need to do this to become more inclusive.
> Which of these mails [2,3] called others fascist?  Do feel free to
> point out ones that don't appear in either query and quote them.

You told me to educate myself in "far-right dog-whistles" implying 
another person was using them, and thus implying they were far-right 
extremists. Maybe I took it too seriously.

(Also that person had called the proposal "woke" and I don't like that 
framing either)

>> I think it is my right (as it is of others) as part of the community
>> to demand some explanation for the change, and for ANY change, the
>> same way I would demand explanations for commits I don't understand.
>> Isn't that my job here?
> That ought to be covered in the Motivation of a GCD, no?  I personally
> feel motivated by it.  You're free to feel differently, I have no
> control over you.  But I don't think it's fair to say there's no
> explanation.

Well, the explanation is quite vague, and does not include possible 
drawbacks like the social price we are paying for it. Some may think 
that's because you were wiling to pay it.

In the document I read "may be perceived as harmful" or "that spring to 
mind more easily" but both are vague suggestions of a possible harm. 
Nothing that actually exists.

Every word may be perceived as harmful.

People that supports your proposal do it for preference, but not because 
they are actually hurt by the word "master". It is fine, though.

>> In the end, this has been put as those who reject the change are
>> against social justice, and that's not an acceptable way to propose
>> anything because it eliminates any possibility for a debate and
>> erases the chance of anyone to be against the change. Reducing the
>> issue to "If you confront -> you are against social justice".
> So, assuming that you are for social justice, but against this change,
> do you think this change constitutes a social injustice?
> Or; assuming you are against social justice, would you rather not be
> perceived as such?

I think, this original let's rename the branches idea gained traction in 
the last years because it creates some social division where people 
could just check the default branch name of software projects to see if 
they were more left or right leaning and I don't like that. That's why I 
don't like it being applied here.

Oftentimes this kind of proposals are made to stretch the project's 
social structure and try to find holes.

We did have a similar episode with a patch being sent to the CoC for 
good initial reasons but what happened to be a person that claimed that 
trans women could not be considered women. I didn't read his intentions 
very well at the beginning, but if I'm not mistaken, you did.

I think your proposal here is also a stretch in the social dynamics of a 
very diverse project.

>> 6. I think the initial goal for the proposal was actually to look for
>> confrontation.
> Believe it or not, I actually was not prepared for the backlash I
> received.  I actually thought this would be a straight-forward change
> to implement given the values that folks here share, and I'm not happy
> to be proven wrong on that.

Well, what happened here is what triggered my reserves since the very 
beginning, and I think I told you in the previous thread.

You underestimated how diverse Guix is. Guix has people from all over 
the globe, and it shouldn't surprise you that many people here were not 
affected by the original push for the branch rename as much as you were.

When I took part in the discussion it wasn't only in my name. Surely I 
could be more precise on it, but I tried to make you understand that 
those things that we consider superobvious (master might be offensive -> 
we change it) might not be so obvious to others, and we might pay a 
social price for discussing them in the terms you did.

In a previous email I asked what would happen if we started a discussion 
about putting a "free palestine" label in the Guix website. Many 
software projects did that (also with Ukranian flags). The problem here 
is also related with what Ludovic mentioned: he changed the branch name 
in the shepherd without any hassle. He surely could put the "free 
palestine" label in the Shepherd website easily.
But Guix is a global project, and thinking such a proposal would not 
have any backlash is very naive.

That's why I think we should refrain from trying this kind of "very 
obvious" changes that are really rooted in our political views. We might 
be asking for too much for such a diverse group of people.

Best,
Ekaitz

> Cheers
> 
> [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/dotnet/comments/wrci66/is_the_name_master_branch_offensive/
> [2] https://yhetil.org/guix-devel/?q=fascist+s%3Amain+s%3Abranch
> [3] https://yhetil.org/guix-patches/?q=fascist+s%3A76407
>