Hello Ekaitz,
Im getting why you (and Christopher in the recent email) have concerns
and thank you for speaking freely.
I personally feel that Liliana (as part of the GCD) has written a
balanced description of the weaknesses inherent within descriptors (both
in terms of recent branch naming, as well as the inability to
futureproof terminology).
I would be happy to be a signatory but am equally hoping that amendments
may improve consensus and sustainability.
Better technical guarantees, if not a better updated names would be my
priorities.
I should make it clear that I find ossified naming to be a form of
control.
Below is a right wing philosopher articulating why testing customs is
important:
“The human faculties of perception, judgment, discriminative feeling,
mental activity, and even moral preference, are exercised only in making
a choice. He who does anything because it is the custom, makes no
choice.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Additionally, I should mention that a Dail citation I made previously in
the other thread would have been from rightwing politician.
Heck, I visit the Telegraph daily to read the comic strip "Alex
Masterly" without flinching at the name and happily can write tasks to
myself where I seek to 'master' a topic or a tool.
I would not prejudice that if somebody had issue with terminology that
the political spectrum would be the core motivation.
I suggest that discrimination is a nasty funk which permeates peoples
lives and limits their scope and confidence.
Ive heard enough opinions from other people to feel that my ego should
not be in the way of change,
moreso that I would to favour constructive linguistic amendments.
Its churlish to see such a matter in terms of a dualism of race or
nationality.
For example, the wikipedia overview of the historical usage of the term
"white nigger" provides enough global examples regarding how prejudice
and solidarity play out globally.
Pertinently, Polish mercenaries helping to liberate Haitian slaves
during their revolution (rather than subjugate them) altered world
history -- empathy requires no colour.
... more tangentially, the story of the British diplomat Roger Casement
(as a direct consequence of his experiences in the Congo) was more
impactful than the antics of /spymaster/ Guy Burgess.
Lets be honest, there are enough authoritarians poking around
everywhere.
One only needs to look for the phrase "Do you know how much slaves cost
back then?" for a modern day Ne'er-do-well at a rally to understand that
there are people who do indeed intend to subjugate in order to 'return
to the good old days'.
We are not in the realms of being offended by arcane idioms (such as
'below the salt') - we should be active participants in common courtesy.
While I understand there hasnt been any ill will or greater offense by
anybody, I would prefer that non authoritarian political positions or
activities (including leftwingers and people in the midst of higher
education) are not used as pejoratives.
In any case, as highlighted by another poster earlier, the migration
from 'master' has also included classic corporate/capitalist entities
too.
Right, back to technical matters...
Kind regards,
Jonathan
On 2025-02-20 22:57, Ekaitz Zarraga wrote:
On 2025-02-20 22:32, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
On 2025-02-18, Christopher Howard wrote:
Personally, I believe the whole push to switch from "master" to
"main"
is politically correct nonsense, and a waste of time. Obviously a
"master" branch in repository has nothing to do with slavery or
political perspectives, but DEI proponents have a compulsive desire
to
eradicate from society and language anything that has some vague
connection to what they find displeasing.
If "main" is the default for new git repositories, I don't care and
that is fine with me, but I see no need to rename leading branches on
any existing projects.
The fact that you see no need when obviously others do, might be time
better spent, in my humble opinion, by asking questions (internally or
externally) than making dismissive comments.
I don't find this dismissive. At all. I only see a person sharing his
opinion, which, sadly, I think is pretty hard in this kind of subject.
I made questions, and no one has give me an answer that is anything
more than a feeling of something they don't suffer themselves. Nobody,
specially not even a single black person, who were supposed to be the
reason for all this, has ever told me this is something they feel
represented with this change.
I make software for the users, whatever they are. Not for the image I
have in the internet or in order to get leftist points.
If a change is going to negatively affect the users of the software I
make I need to justify it properly.
Until this very moment, nobody did. Even if I am actually very
concerned about human rights, I find the arguments exposed not only in
this thread but also in the original Git branch naming discussion very
poor.
I am pretty much aware that I'm fighting a lost battle here, that my
opinion is worthless and that we are probably are going to apply this
change because it's something popular to do. In fact, many people is
probably starting to feel uncomfortable with me because of this
discussion and will have an opinion about my political views.
I'm tired of this. Probably it's just me, but it looks like the game is
rigged and those that propose this kind of changes have The Right by
their side, and those who oppose them have to justify them to death,
while being respectful, but also carefully not to sound like Nazis to
them.
The word Master has nothing to do with slavery in this context, it
never had (and this is not really about black people either). I
honestly think really nobody can be really hurt by this word, in this
context.
I think people are smart. I think they have better things to do, than
feeling bad about this. Maybe they are studying for a master's degree
somewhere or whatnot.
I like to believe nobody is a poor soul that needs to be saved from bad
things of the world (maybe children are?). If somebody has a problem
with this word should raise a hand.
But we are talking here about removing something that is offensive in a
context where nobody is really offended by it, and it really feels like
the priest telling the just married how they have to have sex.
But still, Christopher should ask questions?
I think someone should start to give answers for the ridiculous
decisions we are starting to take as society.
More specifically in Guix, I'm still yet to find a good thing coming
from this change, and there are many cons already. It's a net negative
change from a technical perspective.
Unless the pro is that this will silence the peer pressure to apply the
change itself (SO YOU THINK SLAVERY IS RIGHT?).
During the Spanish Civil War, which happened way after the slavery was
abolished in the US and led to 40 years of fascist dictatorship, a
famous writer that happens to be born in my city told the fascists:
Venceréis, pero no convenceréis. Which translates to: You'll win, but
you'll not convince.
And sadly that's how I feel about this.
I'm sure the change will be applied, regardless of what those who
oppose it say here. Like Christopher, I would just not care if we were
starting from scratch, but we are not.
We serve the users, not the political agenda of whatever movement we
like. And we do not serve those that are not going to be, or are not
interested on being our users.
I want Guix users to be able to come to a 10 year old codebase that
uses Guix and be able to use it. If the people we are trying to protect
from a word like Guix and what it tries to achieve, I think they would
understand.
Anyway, do whatever you like.
But I'm not convinced.
