> I think it's clear that this _is_ a politically-driven change. It is > not helping the software in any technical way to change the name. The > question is whether the more abstract benefits to people are worth the > potential costs. > > But I don't think anybody has been able to quantify the benefits in a > meaningful way. Or at least a way that everyone agrees on. I'm glad that we can agree on this point, and start giving attention to it. Thank you, Jeff. It seems that we're still in the dark about how helpful this change would really be, and whether its impact, if any, would go into the right direction. So far, the best evidence I've seen comes from people expressing that contrary to what is alleged on their behalf, not only the term "master" does not offend them, but it is in fact this renaming proposal that comes off as racist and uncomfortable to them; and from the lots of people expressing dismay and outrage against this proposal that they see as unwarranted. Please consider that this is still very poor evidence, and data of poorly ascertained quality. I hope we can hear about data both of better quality, and from the other side. Ideally, the first to put forward this convincing data would be the ones who came forward with this issue in the first place, with the claim that "master" offends people, and the intent to drive change about it - so this would be Simon and Don. Simon, Don, can you help here? Strong elements to back up and ground in reality this obviously controversial claim could really help to get people on board with this effort; I hope you don't drop the ball here!
