Does anyone else find this messaging problematic?

So you decide to remove ‘master’/‘slave’ language but then co-opt the language of a movement to fight discrimination and violence… Am I the only one who finds this problematic?


You’re right, it’s a serious matter, not to be treated like a meme. It’s OK to make memes out of movies or video games blunders, but here we’re speaking of lost lives.

No, you are not; especially, since the current implementation of the PR feature appears mandatory for public projects, whereas nearly all others¹ have become optional.

Various of the changes to the service for hosting open-source projects in recent years press towards a disappointingly ritualized imitation of the archetypical software bazaar². What if I specifically want alternate versions of a library to template — or worse, reimplement! — rather than fork, and communicate proposed changes in a manner less reminiscent of plasmids³?


  1. Yes, I prefer notes over hyperlinks, especially as backlash against the accelerated stuffing of dynamic surprises⁴ into documents served by the Internet.

  2. I quote from an old dictionary:

  1. Wikipedia’s article on a much broader topic contains a reasonable executive summary of the narrower idea, and skimming this might shed light on the parallel I see between plasmids and software patches. I am not drawing any specific comparison between permissionless innovation and infectious disease, for that is far outside the scope of this discussion.

  2. The author of the aforementioned dictionary wrote of surprises:

The proliferation of different features accomplishing overlapping goals in any site is a sad departure from this guiding principle, and GitHub’s pervasive attempts to make its guides and suggestions sparkle with linguistic flare does not improve the situation.