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

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 22:47:44 +0100

Am Sonntag, dem 23.03.2025 um 19:43 +0100 schrieb Ekaitz Zarraga:
> 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?
It is funny that you'd suggest that – not sincerely, I know – given
that it's exactly what is currently happening in the US.  Yet, I think
that no one would suggest in honest, and that Guix would resist such an
attempt at othering our trans comrades.

> 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...
To my knowledge, the change in Git was initiated by SF Conservancy,
which is indeed a US nonprofit.  That being said, merely being based in
the US is not yet a reason to disregard their opinion – I think I've
already outlined that before.  Both FSF and GNU were started in the US
too, without them we'd have considerably less free software (regardless
of anyone's opinion on RMS, might I add).

> 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.
I agree with the first sentence of this paragraph.  I don't think that
keeping master because someone way back when decided that that was a
good name is much of "choosing our fate", though.  If anything, had
people accepted the status quo all the way down, we'd still use SVN and
'trunk' :)

> (Some had already shared their concerns about Guix's pronunciation,
> are we also open to change the project's name?)
Maybe, maybe not.  If folks wanted a rebrand, because they don't like
the sound of Guix or think it has been forever tainted by the whole
GuixSD thing that is woefully outdated yet still being used, I could
see myself supporting that.  I could not currently come up with a punny
French name myself, though, and I don't think this is a concern for
many Guix at the moment.

> 
> 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.
Speaking to people in languages other than German can, actually,
depending on the context, hurt them.  Now, we are not in such a context
and I think we are all fine with using English as a language to
communicate our GCDs in – which to be fair, isn't perfect either, and
for tech support and other things it's often more helpful to use folks'
first languages, but I don't think we could seriously consider the
alternative of translating those documents into all languages used by
contributors with the current number of people contributing towards
them.

Now, I will take you by your word and assume you'd agree with me if
this was merely about a choice of preference.  Which, to be fair, as
long as we choose from a pool of harmless choices, it is.  The matter
still remains, that the currently used 'master' is not eligible per
that criterion as even in the face of some token black people declaring
it not an issue, it remains demonstrably offensive for the reasons
pointed out.

> > 
> > 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 used the word "right-wing dogwhistles", but fair enough.  I can
assure you that the person in question was indeed using said dog
whistles (of the American right as well) – whether they were aware of
it or not.¹  And mind you, I was not defending myself here, but
responding to you dismissing someone else's observation that their
comment had indeed been dismissive.

To be completely honest, this entire exchange read like the age old
script of some right winger making an extremely unhinged take and being
called out on it, before a free speech absolutist steps in to defend
them.  And to continue, your response to that felt like you were more
concerned with their right to be right winger, having already
determined they are one, than the sensibilities of any minority under
the threat of right wing rhetoric and/or action.

You told me back than that you were drained by the discussion, that I
made you feel unwelcome and that I've been gaslighting you.  So let me
tell you: your comment was not even the worst I received for making
that suggestion.  And that's just talking for myself.  People have been
made to feel quite uncomfortable by the "actually, master is fine"
crowd.  So yeah, please understand that folks are a little on edge, and
don't be surprised when no one's typing "I'm black and I feel offended
by the name 'master'" in the comments.

> 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.
I think the social price we pay is rather small in this instance,
particularly as we aim to cater towards our own group of contributors.
We did see some not-so-nice sides of folks lurking around Guix surface,
though, I'll grant you that.

> > 
> 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.
I mean, it helps that they become vehicles for folks to scream DEI and
woke at the mere suggestion, but apart from those deliberate
interruptions, I do think we can be reasonable people and collectively
choose a colour for our bikeshed :)

> 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 do remember that episode.  The "good initial reasons" were actually a
smoke screen because they failed to get their changes adopted upstream.
That is quite a different matter than what we're currently discussing,
because "upstream" (Git) already supports free choice of a default
branch name and we're not (yet) making use of that feature.

> > > 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.
You make me sound like a villain whose evil plot is being foiled.  Let
me remind you that I'm part of what makes Guix diverse ;)

> 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.
Now, I'm aware that it might not be super obvious to everyone, but I
did kinda expect most Guix to have a basic amount of empathy with those
who are affected by such "trivial" things as branch names.  They did
put in the effort to fight on everyone's behalf to make the default
configurable, after all.

> 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.
I think we could discuss at lengths about flags on web pages, but we
should take that part of the discussion off-list as off-topic.  For
now, let me just agree that putting a flag on some web appearance is
pretty low effort for no serious gain; especially if such efforts are
not backed by a more serious commitment towards a cause.

I do however think that changing our default branch name is very much
in line with our overall values, not just a bit to score Internet
brownie points, and that we can be a guide to other projects somewhat
married to Git attempting to do the same.  And to be sure: we've
already committed to the change where it was trivial, so let's follow
through on the repositories where there's a small technological hurdle
to overcome.²

Cheers

¹ The purpose of dogwhistling is partly to mark one's intent while
blending in a larger crowd oblivious to the meaning behind the phrases
they use.
² I'm aware that this could alternatively read like a sunk cost
fallacy, but I mean this more in the "practice what we preach" sense.