> While I also agree with Paul that the current name is somewhat dated > technologically, it is not fatally flawed. Therefore, I think we > should leave the naming decision to the FTP masters themselves.
This doesn't change anything about this thread or this email, but in the spirit of trying to be really clear, I believe master is a harmful word as well, even if it's used in a sense where the implication is not slavery -- since it still causes harm to our friends working alongside us to create an operating system. I've done the best I can to fix it where I see it but still live with legacy usage. My position is that there is no part of the name "ftp master" that I find particularly relevant anymore. Part two of my position is that Debian is a very risk averse and slow to change project. It takes us eons to do anything major, and if that decision is perceived as controversial in any way, it takes an order of magnitude longer. With a lot of hostility and the same conversations but with a different flavor of the year. At this point I could script half the traffic on -vote and -project. A GR will serve to turn something that can be done by under 10 people into a series of tragic and passive aggressive blog posts around the etymology of words. To be honest, I have better ways to spend my time. It strikes me as possible and likely the ftpteam agrees that the name is outmoded (both for "ftp" and "master") and can make the change internally (if I had my way, "debian archive team"), or internally with the DPL if that's something that needs to be done. Doing a GR is a signal of failure to let those doing the work make their own decision on their responsibilities, in my mind. The hardest part may very well be changing all the CNAME/A records[1][2] Fondly, paultag [1]: this is actually going to be hard :) [2]: I may live to regret these words
