Re: Consensus on a new default branch name

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!