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

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 22:00:09 +0100

Am Mittwoch, dem 26.03.2025 um 18:06 +0100 schrieb Ekaitz Zarraga:
> In any case, it's not our association what we are considering but the
> association a possible minority (which I argue that it may not exist)
> may have (which I argue it may be fabricated by the fact some people 
> decided the word "master" was offensive).
Can we move past arguments that deny the existence of people?  I think
that discussion was already had five years ago and we do not need to
rehash it.

> But this is something I wanted to highlight, that I think we are kind
> of avoiding discussing. It's not that it is forced upon us only, it's
> that we should, in my opinion, prevent that from happening because
> Guix is of all people, including those that are "cultural enemies" of
> the USA (because of their own reasons or because the cultural context
> where they had the chance to be raised in). And they are already
> doing a huge effort to be here, an effort US Americans don't need to
> do.
> 
> I'd rather make software for the majority of the world, than only for
> those that feel comfortable with the US American eccentricities.
> 
> This includes *people* in Iran, Russia, North Korea, China (just for 
> mentioning some) and the rest of the globe.
So, in your opinion, is using a branch name other than master something
that precludes people from Iran, Russia, the DPRK or China from
contributing, or would this only be the case if we chose a name that is
particularly hostile – either directly or by accident – to those
people.  Continuing, if we had a sizable community of e.g. Chinese
people telling us that using this or that sinophobic term as branch
name is a bad idea, should we not honour those as well?

Now, I am personally not aware that any of the current suggestions are
sinophobic or discriminatory w.r.t. any other ethnicity, religion,
etc., but I am willing to be corrected on that.

> The name of the branch is the color of the bikeshed, I agree with you
> all. I'd prefer if the discussion wasn't put in the terms of "which
> of the colors of the US American flag do we want to use to paint it".
So, the US flag is composed of *checks notes* a desire to avoid racist
and sexist rhetoric?  Well, that colours me surprised.

> Being clear, changing the branch name to please US American
> sensibility may be counterproductive, those that might feel
> underrepresented in Guix (and probably in (free-) software
> development) might see how we lean towards a worldview that is too
> far from theirs. No surprise that some countries use their own
> software ecosystem. I don't like to work only for less than a quarter
> of the planet. I think people from any place in the world deserves
> this work, and those who we are trying to please are the ones that
> need it the less.
Can I get 1 USD the next time you insinuate that this proposal exists
solely to placate the interests of people in the US?  I also accept
euros if need be.

Now there might be a nugget of truth within this paragraph in that
there is a risk to inadvertently choose a branch name that alienates a
particular group of people.  If you feel that this is not sufficiently
discussed as a drawback to the proposal, then perhaps I concede that
such wording ought to be added.  

Other than that, I do think it is understood based on our CoC that we
should not choose such a name in the first place and such names should
not be up for debate.  In fact, the section on the choice of a name
opens up with the goal to find a name that "Guix contributors, as a
whole, feel comfortable with".

Perhaps it was a bit naïve of me to assume a name exists that all of us
can actually get behind.  It appears as though some people will feel
uncomfortable with anything but master for the mere reason that people
dared questioning "master".  I can't help but feel like all this talk
about US imperialism this, US imperialism that is to waste time and
effort that could otherwise be spent towards effecting positive change.
I know I am not reviewing any patches as I type out this reply.

> This I wanted to point out when I proposed putting the Palestinian
> flag in the Guix website. I'm sure that I didn't make people think as
> much as I expected to, because this conversation was more
> confrontational than anything. But please think about it again. We
> cannot pretend that a discussion like that one would be only positive
> for the project, like I think this GCD does. 
This is not at all how I read your proposal towards putting flags on
websites.  In fact, it didn't even look like a proposal.

> There is a possible negative outcome, for example, that those who
> think that is unfair (maybe because they grew up watching missiles
> falling in their city) leave the project. We can agree or disagree,
> but that is a possibility and we should be empathetic enough to
> understand it and predict it the same way we try to predict the
> negative outcomes of our technical decisions.
Should we also predict that those who grew up watching missiles falling
in their city are at some point actually hit by said missiles?  I mean,
there is a possible negative outcome wherein we discuss trivial matters
such as branch naming while the powers that be invest in arms to start
a third world war.  Should we not be in the streets in this very
instant to stop our local governments from spending money on war
machines that would be much more direly needed in the education and
healthcare sectors?

> 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!) 
I do have a small drawbacks section containing loaded words such as
"evolve", "future", "satisfaction", and "opinion".  Oh, and "obvious".

> 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.
Simon already pointed out (in reply to Andreas) how Codeberg et al.
advise "main" as the default branch for new projects and how projects
currently appear to be using "main" a lot as a result.

If anything about the framing of the GCD is wrong, it's that we are not
the vanguard – we are in fact lagging behind. 

Cheers