Is using master/slave terminology anti-diversity?
We got a PR in our repo https://github.com/rudderlabs/rudder-server/pull/432 requesting us to change the master/slave terminology to main/subordinate.
I really appreciate the author for bringing this issue up but somehow the main/subordinate doesn't seem right too.
Wondering if people have thought about this. And if yes, what alternative terminology people have been following?
IMHO “Slave” is the problematic word here. I think it’s better to avoid the slavery analogy and instead use “worker” or “replica”.
No, since in IT it doesn't associate the concept to racists one.
Think about master/slave hard drive controllers (the old IDE interface) for instance. And what about the Git "master" branch: what has to do with racists concepts?
And what about "master degree"?
My expedience is once the language police start driving the conversation everything loses momentum and starts to fall apart. Because when the top of your list of demands are inane superfluous things it makes everything else appear so as well.
I've thought about this since the days of IDE drives. As a black person in America I see it as a reminder of a painful legacy reduced to a catchy mnemonic. Those kinds of things waer in you, just like seeing 5 out of 7 people on US currency being slaveowners.
Both words need to go imo
`leader/follower` is one option you can consider.