Why Git repository providers needn't rename master

Mastery of a certain concept or skill is probably not our problem. Mastery over other people's human rights is. However, we delegate such mastery to structures of power all the time. This is because of an outdated social contract with unregulated late stage capitalism.

To actually do something beyond just a symbolic rename, GitHub, for instance, just needs to actually remove different forms of mastery because of organizational and managerial constraints.

For there to be any freedom to work but work unlike a slave, we need freedom to not work and still exist. This basic idea is connected not just to universal income but deeper constructs as well, e.g. negative income taxes and basic social equities.

We need to be trained before work

Learning to work needs to happen before work. This is especially so as to not let it mix up the organizational roles like 'interns' or another vague / undescriptive title.

With qualification, we need to have matching contractual offers. This is handled on an abstract and extensible + self-hosted way within nep.work core.

Removing master

Renaming master should be a local choice of the repository owners, not a globally imposed constraint from structures like Microsoft's GitHub.

This can be done with an easy script that could just be added to any CI/CD pipeline.