[suddenclarity]

Skimming the letter makes it look like another attempt at pushing through their Code of Conduct (RFC98) targeting "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry", whatever that means. Now going a step further by erasing the people in charge.

[ParetoOptimal]

> targeting "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry"

Is targeting "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry" a bad thing?

[fireflash38]

What do you do when people who claim to be targeting fascist ideals also use the same tactics as those they're targeting?

[zer00eyz]

You make them take all the words they dont like out of their copy of 1984.

[Cthulhu_]

Either side needs to be making factual and objective claims then. Slinging accusations of facism and retorting with the "you're the real facist" isn't going anywhere.

In practice there's probably no facism either way, but it's an easy and loaded term to throw around.

[_cenw]

Then they'd be breaking the RFCs stated goal. The possibility of a stated ideal not working doesn't mean you shouldn't have the ideal. Though I suspect my definition of using fascist tactics likely differs from yours in this case, but this isn't the space to re-litigate the paradox of tolerance.

[rs_rs_rs_rs_rs]

When, for people pushing this targeting, fascism/bigotry means having a branch in your repo names master I absolutely believe targeting ideas rooted in fascism/bigotry is a bad thing.

[tripdout]

On one hand, I struggle to think that people might actually care about switching "master" to "main", as opposed to making wider improvements to inclusivity.

On the other hand, I don't have a strong attachment at all to naming a branch "master" and can easily rename it without a second thought.

[jwilk]

> I don't have a strong attachment at all to naming a branch "master" and can easily rename it without a second thought.

It's easy only if you don't care about all the people who already cloned your repo.

Recovering from remote repos renaming their default branches is no fun.

[Cthulhu_]

And yet, branches disappearing is not uncommon. Changing your remote branch name is trivial, but being made aware of it is the problem. It's been a while since this change was done, but if it was still being proposed, the git client saying "oi, this branch changed name" and offering to update things would be a bit more user friendly.

[ParetoOptimal]

> On one hand, I struggle to think that people might actually care about switching "master" to "main", as opposed to making wider improvements to inclusivity.

I thought it wasn't a big issue until I saw how hard one side fought to keep the name "master".

After that I changed my mind and name all of my branches main and give a little push to projects I'm part of to do the same.

Plus, words do have power:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51USLgPWhgc

[zer00eyz]

> I thought it wasn't a big issue until I saw how hard one side fought to keep the name "master".

Master craftsman? Master mold? Master copy? Head Master... Just because this word was used in relation to slavery doesn't curtail its use in language, removing it only serves to focus its "power".

Also, thats not how language works. At all. It is never how language worked. An Australian and an American are going to have a very different reaction to the word cunt.

Candidly, the erasing of words from language for any reason is very 1984, it's a book you might want to read, its a good primer to understanding how control of language is one of the features of fascism. You should probably read up on how linguistic purity was part and parcel of Italian and to a lesser degree German control of the people.

[Zetaphor]

> Master craftsman? Master mold? Master copy? Head Master... Just because this word was used in relation to slavery doesn't curtail its use in language, removing it only serves to focus its "power".

Except none of those examples are relevant comparisons. It's well documented that the reason the default branch name was master traces back to Bitkeeper, which was using the master/slave nomenclature.

> Also, thats not how language works. At all. It is never how language worked. An Australian and an American are going to have a very different reaction to the word cunt.

Master and slave have universal meaning across all English dialects.

If you're going to make an argument against this change on the basis of semantics, at least get your facts right.

[lliamander]

> I thought it wasn't a big issue until I saw how hard one side fought to keep the name "master".

They only fight that hard because they know the people fighting to remove "master" are (as a group) acting in bad faith.

On this and many other issues they tend to lie about history and language, extort those who don't comply with threats of sabotage towards their projects and/or careers, and will equivocate and dissemble whenever confronted.

It's perfectly fine want to use "main" rather than "master" (that is probably my preference). And it is perfectly fine to suggest other people do as well. But if you suggest it others and they tell "no" (politely or not), the right thing for you to do at that point is to mind your own business.

[Cthulhu_]

I mean in the end it could have just been a polite request.

But a lot of people get very defensive about it, not just for practical reasons but out of fear of the slippery slope or the consequences of a perceived angry PC mob that can utterly destroy their projects and careers.

[mrguyorama]

Oh look someone brought a horse carcass to the party.

God forbid a single implementation of popular software change a default in a fairly meaningless way. Especially since the older term hasn't been accurate in software development for like a decade. Does anyone even ship/deploy the "master" branch anymore?

But no, while we should dislike these folks for saying "we don't want a military contractor to sponsor our event", we should 100% get behind "this private company changed a term and I don't like that so obviously they are wrongthinkers"

[skissane]

Yes, because "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry" is a vague phrase lacking any clear definition, and risks becoming a cudgel for cliques to use to shut down anyone who disagrees with them.

[Cthulhu_]

Slippery slope fallacy, however I agree the wording is too vague and needs to be more specified. Facism / bigotry are catch-all terms for a broad range of things, and the RFC should link to or include the definitions they consider, with a caveat that they may be updated at a later time.

[skissane]

> Slippery slope fallacy

How is what I said a "slippery slope"? And what makes it fallacious?

> Facism / bigotry are catch-all terms for a broad range of things

Why not then drop those terms, and replace them with more specific terminology?

[nh23423fefe]

Making up dubious connections to wrongthink is a bad thing.

[throwawa14223]

It's scope creep for reproducible package build system, so yes in this case it is.

edit: replaced 'feature' with 'scope' realized I typed an unclear word.

[marginalia_nu]

Based on how these things have historically tuned out, yes. This is very problematic.

The root of the problem is that it is basically impossible to defend yourself against the accusation that you are secretly a fascist. If you say yes, you admit to being a fascist, if you say no, you're a lying fascist. If you question why the accusation is levied against someone else, you're defending a fascist, if you speak out against the proceedings, you're defending fascism.

The only way to prevent accusations of harboring secret fascist sympathies is to deflect the accusation by lashing out against others with the same sort of accusation, thus demonstrating that you are not secretly a fascist.

This is a dynamic that has repeated itself many times, it's the engine behind countless actual witch hunts, but also metaphorical ones such as the McCarthy-era red scare, the ideological persecution under Stalin.

[dwb]

I don't get how this follows; no-one needs to be a secret anything, and the aim isn't even personal. Targeting "ideas rooted in fascism and bigotry" means to oppose the discursive ideas and concepts as they are put forth in the community, and the resulting concrete actions, that come from fascism and bigotry – specifically not the people or private thoughts.

[marginalia_nu]

Even if you deal just with ideas and somehow separate them from the people who promote them, what mechanism do you propose to use to decide whether an idea is rooted in bigotry or fascism? The accusation is incredibly nebulous and can be used to derail almost any proposal.

For the sake of argument, let's say I put forward the charge that the policy itself is rooted in bigotry. Can you prove that it is not?

[dwb]

Of course not, but asking for a "proof" for a question like that is a category error. It will be decided by whatever the group decision process is, which would have to be present for all the other non-trivial, and yes, fuzzy things that have to be decided, both technical and social.

[marginalia_nu]

Ok, let's pretend you're on the committee and you have dismissed my accusation that the policy is bigoted.

My next move is to publicly accuse the committee harboring fascist sympathies. Your voting record is undeniable, and I am just appalled this stuff can go on in the 2020s and demand the committee is replaced with people who does not hold these bigoted beliefs.

[Macha]

eelco here is not accused of behaving in a facist or bigoted manner though. The accusation is two steps away already, specifically not being sufficiently supportive of the means of a process which has prevention of facist or bigoted behaviour as one of its goals.

[dwb]

Indeed. Is that not a valid complaint?

[soraminazuki]

Not every policy claiming to prevent (insert something heinous here) is a good one.

The PATRIOT Act is a terrible law. Opposing it doesn't make you a terrorist. But you would've been accused of being one nonetheless if you opposed it in 2001.

It's easy to see why many people wouldn't want to actively get into such a controversy. But even that is being used as grounds for kicking someone out.

[soraminazuki]

I think the GP nailed it. The thing is, no one in the community has been promoting fascism and bigotry. There are, however, plenty of insinuations. That's why there's strong opposition to this kind of thing.

Any other topic would've equally been as problematic. Is it a bad thing to target "terrorism" as well? How about "human trafficking?" Can't you please think of the children!

[Cthulhu_]

If you're secretly a facist, then there is no problem because there is no proof of facism, and the burden of proof is on the accuser.

Of course, there is a problem because mob mentality can be relentless.

[busterarm]

The article I linked here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40199727) provides evidence for exactly that.