[VOTE] Switch 'master' to 'main' branch for repositories

[Daniel Golle]

On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 10:43:38AM +0100, Imre Kaloz wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2023, Daniel Golle wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 03:52:13PM -0300, Fernando Frediani wrote:
> > > Hello
> > > 
> > > Some comments inline
> > > 
> > > On 02/03/2023 14:01, Paul Spooren wrote:
> > > > - SFC, which we joined some time ago actively “supports and encourages projects to switch to branch names that are meaningful and inclusive”. Since they are somewhat our link society (money, trademark, more) I’d trust them on that matter, too.
> > > > > https://sfconservancy.org/news/2020/jun/23/gitbranchname/
> > > 
> > > Support and encourages doesn't mean they enforce it. While this is not
> > > mandatory in order to keep the link with them that is just a detail that may
> > > or may not be followed and if not then nothing else will change.
> > > It could well be that some people suggesting it there were convinced by some
> > > political correctness line that wishes to spread this way of thinking.
> > 
> > Absolutely. And I don't think there would be anything wrong about that.
> > Political correctness is generally a good thing. Of course, sometimes
> > there can be a conflict of interests and I've seen this going wrong as
> > well. Using purely academic language codes, for example, can exclude
> > people from less priviledged classes who don't have access or time or
> > money to be part of the academic world. And yes, sometimes we may need to
> > weight different *isms against each others, case-by-case. If communicated
> > well and calmly nobody should get hurt, and intollerance should only be
> > practised against intollerant behaviors.
> > 
> > That being said, it's clear to me that nobody should ever be punished or
> > excluded for not following political correct language conventions,
> > unless it is done on purpose to hurt others (and that will have to be
> > proven).
> 
> Freedom of speech is a right, being offended is a choice. Academia is the
> perfect example to showcase the damage of political correctness can cause
> with "safe spaces" preventing debates and confrontation. There are now
> hundreds of thousands of people who feel like hearing different opinions are
> evil because it hurts their feelings. We more than likely lost decades of
> scientific progress because of that.

That's obviously not what's going to happen by implementing a simple change
of a name with a bad legacy. And as this debate is going on, as you can see,
your freedom of speech is not under threat. Your free speech will remain
documented in mailing list archives, on archive.org, ... Nobody is limiting
you from participating in this project, despite our differences.

> 
> > > > - Other project we rely on switched away from master branch, too. They seem to be doing just fine so I’m not concerned that the OpenWrt project would handle it differently. Implementation examples (incomplete list):
> > > > >    - LLVM abandoned master branch entirely
> > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
> > > >    - Git mirrors main/master https://github.com/git/git/branches
> > > 
> > > I don't see much reasons why they would not keep doing fine, but also don't
> > > see any (actually zero) benefit from this change.
> > > The fact that there are other projects doing it doesn't mean much unless
> > > there is a technical merit and in this case I see none. It is not because
> > > other projects choose to do that many others should feel the pushed to do.
> > > Each has to analyze the merits according to their own reality and of the
> > > people who make it happen, not simply according due to what other projects
> > > have chosen.
> > 
> > That's true and as I would love to see a more diverse demography of
> > users and contributors, I'm all for changes which could facilitate that.
> > And yes, language use and the perceived openness towards contributors of
> > all backgrounds is a factor which will influence the attractiveness of
> > the project.
> > 
> > Consider for example students who can choose to do their thesis to be
> > based on OpenWrt or rather work with other projects where they perceive to
> > be in a more friendly community. Many of todays developers, including
> > myself, started with OpenWrt in this way; and yes, my decission was
> > certainly also based on political factors (such as the project not being
> > directly associated with any industry players, and many developers being
> > active in community mesh projects giving away Internet access for free
> > also to those who otherwise couldn't afford it).
> > 
> > Of course, you may now argue that by following this line of political
> > correctness (no negative connotation intended) we may also drive away
> > some people who are in a personal war against all traces of "wokeness",
> > smelling a global conspiracy against them personally behind every attempt
> > to give access to the same privileges they already got also to others.
> > However, I don't think that not dealing with this kind of people would
> > be a big loss.
> 
> There are fundamental differences between us you fail to understand:
> 
> - your dogma is that you can force changes like this on communities and
> society as a whole, while we believe that these evolve organically

I'm not forcing anything. I'm merely casting a vote in a democratic
process. And participating in a lively debate. Just like you.

How do you define "organic"?

> 
> - you claim to represent people who are not around, we do not even claim to
> represent others who have shared their similar opinion here without their
> approval

Please re-read the above. I'm making the example of myself here. Not
claiming to represent anyone else.

Considertaion is something else than representation.

> 
> - you claim to thrive for a better world but you love putting labels on
> people
> 
> - you claim we are at war against "wokeness", while you are the one fighting
> your sanctum bellum against the world and try to drag us, who
> want to keep this project outside of the political madness, into it
> 
> This is not a fight for mankind or for the people, this is a fight against
> mankind and against the people, using the roman tactics of divide and
> conquer.

Lol, if there's anything roman here than it's all these latin terms I
constinously have to look up in online translators ;)

> 
> To quote Rand: "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who
> deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

...and which individual right exactly is being denied here?

> 
> > > > I fully understand that people don’t want to do extra work within open source projects which they don’t find themselves necessary. However, when voting here I’d like people to consider that other people are fine putting in the “work” for using more inclusive language.
> > > 
> > > I don't think that issue is restricted only to the work that has to be done
> > > as a result of it, but consider also that some people don't wish to move
> > > this forward in order to not comply this political view and because in the
> > > view of some that it may bring zero benefits.
> > > Example is important and when you let a change happen that doesn't have
> > > enough merit to happen other doors may be opened for other similar and
> > > unnecessary changes.
> > 
> > The doors for all changes are already open. We are a democratically
> > organized project. Administrative changes such as the one suggested
> > here are decided by a simple majority vote.
> > See https://openwrt.org/rules
> > 
> > Changes in code are decided by review and up to now we haven't seen
> > any edit wars -- despite the different political and ideological views
> > present among the project members.
> > 
> > When it comes to high-level language changes (let's say: in LuCI) they
> > could even exists peacefully next to each other. We could have several
> > verions of English translations and it's a matter of adding some
> > translation files, e.g.
> > English (old-school)
> > English (woke)
> > English (pirates)
> > English (simple language)
> > ...
> 
> English (newspeak).
> 
> > > > If Felix doesn’t have the time to work on that, I’m happy to jump in and do the step(s) in case this vote passes.
> > > > > tl;dr I see valid political reasons reasons to switch and
> > > trivial technical issues.
> > > 
> > > I agree that some political aspects may be able drive the direction of a
> > > project, but only when they can cause some harm or lack of something to it.
> > > In this case I see zero harm caused by not changing what is proposed and
> > > mainly that technical merits should always prevail and in this case or at
> > > least be strong, as mentioned I am unable to see any.
> > > 
> > > To finish with I don't believe it is lack of empathy but I fail to see cases
> > > in the recent years or even decades where developers feel bad with using the
> > > "master" word in day to day development context.
> > 
> > Just because you don't see them it doesn't mean they don't exist.
> > I do see them. And this discussion is probably also not contributing
> > to make them feel welcome in our project.
> 
> Just because you claim you see them it doesn't mean they do exist. Being
> offended on behalf of others and fighting against the claimed oppression of
> others has always been a trojan horse. If a mature discussion like this does
> not make someone feel welcomed in a community, then that person should
> question either the values upheld or if he/she needs help.
> 
> 
> tl;dr
> 
> A lot of people asked for one single technical merit for this change and we
> can conclude there is none.

Now it's you representing others in a assumed "we".

You have concluded, and other individual members may not, partially or
fully agree with you or other political positions, may explicitely
remain neutral or just ignore the whole debate.

> 
> 
> Imre