Subject: [bug#76407] About consensus, again (was Re: [bug#76407] [GCD] Rename the default branch)

From: Simon Tournier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:20:36 +0100

Hi Ekaitz, all,

On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 at 18:06, Ekaitz Zarraga <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I don't know if Simon's question "are we really looking for consensus 
> here?" was pointed to me, but I've been trying to. Maybe poorly, 
> addressing the core issues of the proposal, and saying, probably we 
> shouldn't have even started it.

Not specifically to you, Ekaitz; specifically to you, all. :-)

Still, I am not convinced we are trying to build something together.
For example, you, Ekaitz wrote in the message I reply:

        And if you wish, strictly speaking on the document. It describes 
        potential social benefits using heavy loaded words ("harmful", "racist", 
        "sexist") but it doesn't list any social drawback. That's more than 
        enough to understand how biased the proposal is (it's just so obvious!) 
        and how difficult that is to argue against. The belligerence this has 
        been defended with doesn't help much to try to understand the answers it 
        got.

And this is the typical anti-pattern – IMHO – How to not build together
a consensus.  This is confrontational, again IHMO.  For instance,
Ekaitz, compare this frame or one of [1] and the first question below.

FWIW, my views about how consensus works is to friendly ask about
specific wording and propose alternatives.  It’s not to have a judgement
or express a dismissive opinion.

Then, it’s because we are specific on the document itself that we can
build something together – as we do with regular patches.  By asking
specifically on the document itself, it’s possible to friendly point
something that might appear useless or poorly worded, and maybe the GCD
itself might become weak or pointless.  Well, as we do with regular
patches, no?  Else all is doomed before we even try.

IIUC, the master problem is about these two sections:

        # Summary

        Currently, much of Guix's development takes place on the “master”
        branch.  This name is neither particularly meaningful nor inclusive;
        choosing to use it may inadvertently alienate potential contributors.
        To mitigate these effects, we should more clearly communicate, what the
        default branch is all about.

        # Motivation

        It is well known, that Git works with whatever branch name one chooses.
        However, for historical reasons, the default/initial/main branch for
        development used to be “master” — particularly in 2012, when the first
        commit to Guix was made.

        Recent versions of Git support arbitrary initial branches and the
        default branch name is subject to change upstream, at least in part
        because the current default — “master” — may be perceived as harmful.
        While the intended meaning is something close to “an original, from
        which copies are made”, there are several other meanings of the word
        that spring to mind more easily, some of have a racist or sexist
        connotation.

        One goal of the Guix community is to foster a healthy community around
        the software we use.  Using clear language that does not pertain to
        harmful stereotypes is a key towards achieving this goal.  Thus, as a
        proactive step, we should rename the default branch.

Therefore, being active and engaging would mean:

+ Can we rewrite the Motivation section?  Because people have Master
  degree and the diploma’s not yet renamed, to my knowledge.  Is the
  words master really harmful, racist or sexist?

+ About the Motivation, why not narrow the scope and focus on some
  aspects: quoting [1] « a) most users leave unchanged the Git default
  "main", therefore "master" will become increasingly uncommon and
  unexpected, b) the choice of "main" is masterfully similar when
  tab-completing or looking through a sorted list of refs, and c) the
  move to Codeberg presents a hopefully rare opportunity combine
  disruptive changes »

+ The Motivation appears to me poorly written because I’ve never heard
  that the term master would be harmful or racist or sexist.  Do we have
  references for backing this claim?

Etc.

Bah after a frank but friendly discussion, if the Motivation appears
empty, then it answers by itself, no?

Why do people need to drag in the discussion – in no specific order–: my
Black friends, personal history with slavery or dictatorship, opinions
on US imperialism, Gaza massacre, English language, Ukrainian war, a
quote of Frantz Fanon, etc.

Do not take me wrong, I see the gift to have people with different
backgrounds on board, and I celebrate because people do not fear to
generously share what they think.  Even, I’m never the last to
cross-pollinate^W -battle ideas or learn about what other people think.
However, let be honest, this dragging, is it really helpful to build
something together?

Build a consensus implies a self-discipline when approaching the
discussion.  It’s about patience and stay on the document itself.  I let
you all to judge who drifted or framed it out of the scope.

Somehow, I’m very disappointed about not being able to build together.
Bah I’m still confident about Decision Making via consensus, even on
such bikeshedding topic!  Well, I’m confident because I’m sure we will
all learn about this GCD and so reset to friendly questions on the
document itself when approaching the Discussion Period.

Anyway, I’m done with this GCD.

Bye.
simon

1: Re: [GCD] Rename “main” branch
Ekaitz Zarraga <[email-masked]>
Thu, 20 Feb 2025 23:57:35 +0100
id:[email-masked]
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2025-02
https://yhetil.org/guix/[email-masked]

2: [bug#76407] [GCD] A better name for the default branch
Greg Hogan <[email-masked]>
Fri, 28 Feb 2025 10:46:05 -0500
id:CA+3U0ZmnhHSbd=[email-masked]
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/76407
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/msgid/CA+3U0ZmnhHSbd=[email-masked]
https://yhetil.org/guix/CA+3U0ZmnhHSbd=[email-masked]