Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

[Daniel Playfair Cal <daniel playfair cal gmail com>]

Just a few comments I think are worth making:

• The word "master" as in master branch is an synonym/analogy/reference, not a coincidence. Language develops together with history, and the meanings of words constantly evolve. If a word has multiple meanings, it is usually because the word "forked" at some point as related or more specific concepts diverged from an older concept. "master" I think is such a word - it can mean various different things as has been discussed, but they are all related concepts. It is unreasonable to say that master as in "master copy" is related to master as in slave driver by pure coincidence. There was no CEO of English that rolled a dice one day and thus decided that the word for an authoritative copy would be the same as that used for a slave driver. It seems obvious to me that the two meanings are different sides of the same coin. Perhaps when the fork happened, "authority" was more a synonym for "truth" than it is now. On that basis, it is relevant that other projects have removed their use of the terms master/slave, and that apparently it or similar efforts had a positive effect.
  
• As English speakers, we choose how our language evolves. It is a choice to keep using a word just as it is a choice to swap it for a new one. It is not censorship to make a choice one way or the other. Nobody in this thread has suggested that anyone should be sent to jail for talking about the master branch (or any such thing). If changing the word we use is censorship, then continuing with the word we have must also be censorship. The only important question is which word is better to use today and in the future.
• There is obviously not going to be statistically bulletproof data for whether renaming a branch increases contributions, or has any other specific effect. There are too many variables to measure it reliably. But it is also obvious that making an effort to use language that does not exclude certain groups is likely to increase participation.
• There are many people and groups that face oppression today or have in the recent past and it is important to be sensitive to that. I think acknowledging this is not some sort of insane joke or "extreme" point of view, it is simply basic kindness and understanding for other people and their experience. If this particular issue seems irrelevant to you, that does not mean it is irrelevant for everyone - and it is not a strong argument either way. Whoever you are, there are words and ideas that will remind you of bad things and make you uncomfortable, and its normal and reasonable for others to make a small effort to avoid these when they are not relevant.
  

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:54 PM Carmen Bianca Bakker <carmen carmenbianca eu> wrote:

Je mer, 2019-05-01 je 23:31 +1000, Michael Gratton skribis:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 15:19, Carmen Bianca Bakker
> <carmen carmenbianca eu>
> > > I did however point out that Python has replaced uses of the term
> > >  "master", and we should do the same.
> >
> > We should. But not all instances of "master" are equally
> > problematic—that's the main debate here. I don't see anybody here
> > disagreeing against replacing instances of master that are NOT related
> > to Git.
>
> Because this has been addressed several times over already. From
> tonight alone:
>
> > This has already been covered in the original proposal under
> > objection (1) "It doesn't matter". As has already been discussed,
> > what actually doesn't matter is what you or I think, it is the people
> > who have been affected by the language we use that matter. These are
> > the people who won't contribute to GNOME because of these terms, and
> > it is the project that loses out in the end.

You didn't demonstrate this. I suggested various ways to demonstrate
this in a previous e-mail in this thread, but you completely ignored
it.

You keep asserting this to be true, but never back it up with anything
other than references to other projects who renamed various instances
of the word "master" (and "slave"), but none of them renamed the Git
master branch. It's a false equivalence.

Moreover, it's not enough to demonstrate that the word "master"
sucks—it does. Rather, it needs to be demonstrated that the word—in
this specific context(!!!)—is actively harmful and/or prevents
contributions from people who object to its use.

> > In any case, if you would care to actually read the diffs on the
> > Python change, you'll see that it covered a number of instances of
> > using another word for "master" when "slave" wasn't involved. It's
> > not the pair of terms that is problematic, it's either term in
> > isolation that is.
>
> It is telling that no one is complaining about replacing uses of
> "slave" by itself alone.

This is not a charitable argument at all. There are uses of the word
"master" that are not—in any way, shape or form—related to the practice
of slavery. No such arguments can be made for the word "slave".

I'm getting a bit tired of this back-and-forth, though. You don't want
to entertain any argument against changing the name of the master
branch at all, asserting that the word is completely verboten and any
instance of it might harm the inclusivity of GNOME. You write off these
arguments because they affect a group for whom you appear to speak, but
you haven't demonstrated that this group exists, or that their
interests align with what you claim.

So I'm withdrawing conversation, because I've already said my bit a few
times over and have been ignored a few times over. In summary, please
consider:

- Contacting several organisations who have more expertise on this
subject to inform our next steps.

- Contacting Git upstream (or places like GitHub/GitLab, why not) to
change the name of the default branch.

With kindness,
Carmen
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list