{"thread":{"id":"54685","subject":"There is nothing wrong with the word \"master\"","startedAt":"2020-11-21T00:34:31Z","lastAt":"2020-11-21T15:54:20Z","messageCount":2,"participants":["Felipe Contreras","Phillip Susi"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"410450","messageId":"CAMP44s08AzXt-+duXyFAvJpuke=XTKT=7cibxKKy4bXhAFqxtw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"54685","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"There is nothing wrong with the word \"master\"","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-11-21T00:34:15Z","receivedAt":"2020-11-21T00:34:31Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Hello,\n\nI want to state for the record my objection to the rename of the initial branch.\n\nFirst of all, the burden of proof regarding the claim \"the word\n'master' is offensive\" was never met. It was assumed to be the case\nsimply because some people (with political agendas) said it was the\ncase, but it was never established.\n\nUntil this burden of proof is met, the default position is that we\ndon't know if something is wrong with the word \"master\". Maybe there\nis, maybe there isn't.\n\nSecond, not one person actually found the term offensive directly\ntowards them, personally. The people that found the term offensive did\nso *by proxy*, in other words; they found the term offensive on behalf\nof others, and not by their behest. Just like a man trying to be a\nwhite knight and saying \"please don't use vulgar language in front of\na lady\", but the woman in question did not ask for this, and she can\nspeak for herself.\n\nHow many people complained that the term was offensive directly\ntowards them (not by proxy) in the mailing list? Zero, nil, zilch,\nnadie, zip.\n\nThird, this is a solution looking for a problem [1], not an actual\nproblem. It's not a coincidence that *nobody* found the term\nproblematic for 15 years, and suddenly in the height of wokeness--2020\n(the year of George Floyd, BLM/ANTIFA uprising, and so on)--it\nmagically becomes an issue, and it does so precisely at the same time\nThe Masters Tournament [2] received attention for its name. The\nMasters being more renowned than Git certainly got more attention from\nthe press, and plenty of articles have been written [3][4][5][6]\nexplaining why it makes no sense to link the word \"masters\" to slavery\nin 2020 in this context (even though the tournament's history does\nhave some unconfortable relationship with racism). Nobody is betting\non The Masters actually changing its name.\n\nFor more woke debates, take a look at the 2 + 2 = 5 debate [14] (also in 2020).\n\nFourth, I think it speaks volumes that the change was *demanded* by a\nperson unrelated to the project, had not participated in any thread\nbefore that, nor has participated in any thread since. He had only one\ngoal.\n\nThis is the true context of the proposal/demand. We must not forget\nthat if we are going to change the expectations of hundreds of\nthousands of developers--potentially millions--there must be *a good\nreason* for it, and an unsupported assumption is not it.\n\nI cannot stress this enough: the burden of proof for the claim that\nthe word \"master\" is offensive has *NOT BEEN MET*.\n\n---\n\nNow that I have made clear that the ball should be in the court of the\nanti-master camp (they need to prove guilt), I am going to defend the\nword \"master\" (even though I don't have to prove innocence).\n\nThe first thing I want to highlight is a misunderstanding many people\nhave of language, since most people are not linguists; they don't know\nthe difference between prescriptive and descriptive language [7]. In\nprescriptivism words are dictated (how they ought to be used). In\ndescriptivism words are simply described (how they are actually used).\nDictionaries can be found on both camps, but they are mainly on the\ndescriptive side (especially the good ones).\n\nThis misunderstanding is the reason why many people think (wrongly)\nthat the word \"literally\" should not mean \"virtually\" (even though\nmany people use it this way today). This is prescriptiveness, and it\ndoesn't work. Words change meaning. For example, the word \"cute\" meant\n\"sharp\" in the past [8], but it slowly changed meaning, much to the\ndismay of prescriptivists. It does not matter how much prescriptives\nkick and scream; the masses are the ones that dictate the meaning of\nwords.\n\nSo it does not matter what you--or anyone--thinks, today the word\n\"literally\" means \"virtually\". Good dictionaries simply describe the\ncurrent use [9], they don't fight it (i.e. prescribe against it).\n\nYou can choose how *you* use words (if you think literally should not\nmean virtually, you are free to not use it that way). But you cannot\nchoose how *others* use language (others decide how they use it). In\nother words; you cannot prescribe language, it doesn't matter how hard\nyou try; you can't fight everyone.\n\nLanguage evolves on its own, and like democracy; it's dictated by the masses.\n\nSo, what do the masses say about the word \"master\"?\n\nAccording to my favorite dictionary [10]:\n\n= Noun =\n\n1. A male teacher\n2. A person holding an academic degree higher than a bachelor's but\nlower than a doctor's\n3. The degree itself (of above)\n4. A revered religious leader\n5. A worker or artisan qualified to teach apprentices\n6. An artist, performer, or player of consummate skill\n7. A great figure of the past whose work serves as a model or ideal\n8. One having authority over another\n9. One that conquers or masters\n10. A person licensed to command a merchant ship\n11. One having control\n12. An owner especially of a slave or animal\n13. The employer especially of a servant\n14. A presiding officer in an institution or society\n15. Any of several officers of court appointed to assist a judge\n16. A master mechanism or device\n17. An original from which copies can be made\n\n= Adjective =\n\n1. Having chief authority\n2. Skilled, proficient\n3. Principal, predominant\n4. Superlative\n5. Being a device or mechanism that controls the operation of another\nmechanism or that establishes a standard\n6. Being or relating to a master from which duplicates are made\n\n= Verb =\n\n1. To become a master of\n2. To become skilled or proficient in the use of\n3. To gain a thorough understanding of\n4. To produce a master recording of\n\nThese are not all the meanings, just the ones I found relevant to\ntoday, and the world in general.\n\nYes, *one* of the meanings might be offensive--on certain contexts,\nalthough certainly not all. But by following this rationale the word\n\"get\" can be offensive too; one of the definitions is \"to leave\nimmediately\". If you shout \"get!\" to a subordinate, that might be\nconsidered offensive (and with good reason)--especially if this person\nis a discriminated minority. Does that mean we should ban the word\n\"get\" completely? No, that would be absurd.\n\nAlso, there's another close word that can be considered offensive: git.\n\nPrescriptives would not care how the word *is* actually used today,\nall they care about is to dictate how the word *should* be used (in\ntheir opinion).\n\nBut as we saw above; that's not how language works.\n\nPeople will decide how they want to use the word \"master\". And thanks\nto `init.defaultbranch`, they can decide how *not* to use that word.\n\nIf and when the masses of Git users decide (democratically) to shift\naway from the word \"master\", that's when the Git project should\nconsider changing the default, not before, and certainly not in a\nprescriptive way.\n\nMoreover, today the term is used in a variety of contexts that are\nunlikely to change any time soon (regardless of how much prescriptives\ncomplain):\n\n1. An important room (master bedroom)\n2. An important key (master key)\n3. Recording (master record)\n4. An expert in a skill (chess master)\n5. The process of becoming an expert (mastering German)\n6. An academic degree (Master of Economics)\n7. Arguably an academic degree (Master of Business Administration [MBA])\n8. Golf tournaments (Masters Tournament [The Masters])\n9. Famous classes by famous experts (MasterClass Online Classes)\n10. Online tournament (Intel Extreme Masters [IEM])\n11. US Navy rank (Master-at-Arms [MA])\n12. Senior member of a university (Master of Trinity College)\n13. Official host of a ceremony (master of ceremonies [MC])\n14. Popular characters (Jedi Master Yoda)\n15. A title in a popular game (Dungeon Master)\n16. An important order (Grand Master)\n17. Vague term (Zen master)\n18. Stephen Hawking (Master of the Universe)\n\nAnd many, *many* more.\n\nWhy should the Git project inflict pain on its users unnecessarily\n(and developers too), when it's clear society at large has not decided\nthere's anything wrong with the word?\n\n---\n\nSo far I have only stated *facts*. Now I am going to explain my opinion.\n\nAs stated above; different words have different meanings depending on\nthe context. What meaning does the word \"master\" have in Git?\n\nIn my mind the closest description is given by Merriam-Webster [10]:\n\n  master noun\n  5 b : an original from which copies can be made\n\nFor example: if a mad scientist makes a copy of you (or\ncopies)--otherwise referred to as \"cloning\"--are the other copies just\nas equal as you? In my mind the other clones are not the same: *I* am\nthe original, I am the master copy.\n\nIn the context of Git--which is a *distributed* version control\nsystem--it is common to have a hierarchical forest of repositories,\neach one with multiple branches. The original branch, from the\noriginal clone, which is present in *all* the clones, is the master\nbranch; the branch from which all other copies are made (usually; when\nnot starting an orphan branch).\n\nIn this context it has absolutely nothing to do with master/slaves.\nThe opposite of a master branch is either a descendant (most\nbranches), or an orphan (in rare cases).\n\nThe word \"main\" may describe correctly a special branch among a bunch\nof flat branches, but not the hierarchical nature of branches and\ndistributed repositories of clones of clones.\n\nIn my opinion, even if it was 2005, I would pick \"master\" over \"main\"\nin a heartbeat.\n\n---\n\nI already explained in another thread [11] why I think the impact\ntowards end users has not been considered enough, but there's another\nmore pernicious impact which has not been realized yet; the impact\ntowards the culture of the project.\n\nRegardless of your personal preference for init.defaultbranch, your\nopinion of the word \"master\", and your political stance, one thing\nthat cannot be denied is that this change has caused an outcry among\nusers (even though most aren't even aware of it, so we are likely to\nreceive more).\n\nSo numerous and blatant have been the complaints that the topic has\nbeen banned from reddit [12], and Hacker News. The particular case of\nreddit's r/git is interesting, since there's only three rules: 1. Be\nnice 2. No spam, and 3. No complaining about the change to \"main\"\n(since November 13). The top most voted comment in the ban post seems\nto convey perfectly the sentiment of many users: \"this change does\nhurt people\" [13].\n\nSo it is pretty much an undeniable fact that this change is controversial.\n\nI cannot explain all the ways stifling freedom of speech is a big\nno-no, but I will attempt to condense them as this: censoring dissent\nis bad.\n\n---\n\nIn summary:\n\n1. The anti-master camp has not established there's anything wrong\nwith the name \"master\"\n2. Not a single user has stated they find the word directly offensive\n(not by proxy)\n3. The Git project is collateral damage from the main targets of the\nwoke movement\n4. Prescribing language does not work in practice\n5. Society at large sees nothing wrong with the current usage of the\nword \"master\"\n6. The term \"master\" is better than \"main\"\n7. We should be careful with the cultural impact of this controversial change\n\nNote: this mail is not intended to target any person, or group; it's\nsimply an attempt to state things that in my opinion have not been\nsaid, and I think should be said.\n\nCheers.\n\n[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Solutions_looking_for_a_problem\n[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_Tournament\n[3] https://www.outkick.com/no-the-masters-does-not-need-renaming/\n[4] https://www.si.com/college/tmg/herb-gould/masters-name-controversy\n[5] https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/news/golf/odds-masters-augusta-renamed-blm-movement-favorite/\n[6] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/golf/article-8456979/Rallying-cry-Masters-revert-Augusta-National-Invitational.html\n[7] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/descriptive-vs-prescriptive-defining-lexicography\n[8] https://theculturetrip.com/europe/articles/10-english-words-that-have-completely-changed-meaning/\n[9] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally\n[10] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master\n[11] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAMP44s3BJ3dGsLJ-6yA-Po459=+m826KD9an4+P3qOY1vkbxZg@mail.gmail.com/\n[12] https://www.reddit.com/r/git/comments/jtrx1k/announcement_posts_complaining_about_renaming/\n[13] https://www.reddit.com/r/git/comments/jtrx1k/announcement_posts_complaining_about_renaming/gc8rsej\n[14] https://thepostmillennial.com/two-plus-two-does-not-equal-five-no-matter-what-twitter-says\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"410459","messageId":"87mtzavhjt.fsf@vps.thesusis.net","threadId":"54685","inReplyTo":"CAMP44s08AzXt-+duXyFAvJpuke=XTKT=7cibxKKy4bXhAFqxtw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: There is nothing wrong with the word \"master\"","fromName":"Phillip Susi","fromEmail":"phill@thesusis.net","sentAt":"2020-11-21T15:46:46Z","receivedAt":"2020-11-21T15:54:20Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"phill@thesusis.net","avatar":null},"body":"\nFelipe Contreras writes:\n\n> Hello,\n>\n> I want to state for the record my objection to the rename of the initial branch.\n<snip>\n\nI agree, and appreciate you taking the time to write a very well thought\nout message.  Unfortunately I doubt that any of this matters to those\nmaking the change.\n"}]}