[llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `job` in source code?

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 11:14, Jules Penuchot via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > If not, why "master branch" is?
> The context here is that "master" is being used to describe a
> subordination relationship ("master/slave"), thus referring directly to
> slavery.

I don't think this is universally accepted. Assuming so causes more
grief than is necessary.

Just to be clear, I personally don't think my own experiences speak
for anyone else, so I'm not saying we shouldn't change the branch
name. I really don't mind whatever is called, and if that helps some
people, my "effort" is zero for overall net benefit.

But the fact that "master" in git branch is directly related to
slavery is a stretch.

I have never associated other branches as "slave" to the master
branch. I know a lot of people that didn't either. Some people replied
to that effect on this list. I believe that this is why some people
are calling this process "american centric", because this word is
clearly more sensitive in the US than other places of the word. For
context, in Brazil, the "slave owner" was called something closer to
"landlord". I had trouble adapting to England, having to rent from a
"landlord". But I got used to it and don't think it is offensive as
the context is different.

On the list of words compiled by Google shared in one of these threads
has the word "master" simply as "Don't use. See slave". This is an
over-simplification of a word that has many meanings, like the ones
discussed in the various threads here. I believe the reductionism in
semantics here (and in Google's list) is because, particularly in the
US, the "slave" meaning of the word is so strong and brings so many
bad memories, that any other meaning ceased to exist or be relevant.

Master/Mister, Master of Science, Kung-fu Master are all positive
meanings of the word. In computer science specifically, "master/slave"
is used for databases or distributed services, and that may be where
this is coming from. But that is not to say that this is the only
meaning of the word in computer science as a whole.

So, let's call it for what it is, because I don't think we need
"stronger" reasons to change the branch name.

1. There are a lot of people nowadays, particularly in the US, who are
very sensitive to that word in particular, due to its history with
slavery in English speaking countries.
2. There are a lot of developers in those countries that want to /
participate in the LLVM community.
3. Git branches can be called whatever we want, including the main
development branch.
4. Github doesn't care either and has a setting to change the name to
whatever we want.
5. Changing the name is reasonably painless, after we all had the
chance to change our infrastructure.
6. The continuous long term cost of the change is literally zero.

In this particular case, to me at least, the cost/benefit is almost
100%. Let's get organised and do this together, waiting for the right
moment, which will be decided by consensus in the community, not push
back from those who want it to happen soon. I think the vast majority
of people here want to do it and will help do it. Let's assume the
best in people and give them time to solve their own internal issues
first.

But let's not assume that what is "widely accepted" in one part of the
world is actually "widely accepted" worldwide.

cheers,
--renato