Columns2025/04/02

What Is Inclusive Naming? Reflections on GitHub's Default Branch Change

This is Jimba, CEO of Flagship.

In recent years, "inclusive naming" — the practice of using more inclusive, non-discriminatory language — has been drawing growing attention in IT and software development.

Developers will be familiar with this: in October 2020, as part of this movement and as one of its symbolic events, GitHub changed the default branch name for new repositories from "master" to "main."

This article is my attempt to finally address a lingering unease I had left untouched for more than four years — so let me begin by apologizing for being quite so far behind the times...

(Updated July 2026: In the year or so since this article was first published, the landscape has shifted significantly — Git itself has decided to change its default branch name, and a DEI backlash has unfolded in the United States. This article has been updated throughout to reflect these developments.)

Background: GitHub's Default Branch Rename

The term "master" has historically been used in the "master/slave" pairing, which denotes a relationship of domination. Because this expression evokes associations with racial discrimination, the software industry as a whole has been rethinking it.

The Black Lives Matter movement had been active since 2013, but it intensified after the killing of George Floyd in Minnesota in 2020 — and, remarkably, brought major change to the software industry as well.

In June 2020, Software Freedom Conservancy, a nonprofit dedicated to software freedom and open source, together with the Git project, acknowledged that the default branch name "master" was hurtful to some users and expressed its intention to change it. The statement noted that Git would add the ability for users to specify the initial branch name when creating a new repository, and that changing the default branch name away from "master" was being considered through a community process.

In October of the same year, GitHub changed its policy and shipped the system change.

[2026 Update] Git Itself Is Moving to "main" — the Change Has Reached the Standard

After this article was first published, there was a symbolic follow-up. Not on the hosting side (GitHub, GitLab), but in Git itself: the version control system has officially decided that in its next major version, Git 3.0, the default branch name for git init will change from "master" to "main." The Git project's official document tracking breaking changes states plainly that "in new repositories, the default branch name will be main," and the news was widely reported around the release of Git 2.52 in November 2025.

There is no official release date for Git 3.0 yet (media reports suggest it may arrive around the end of 2026), and the change affects only new repositories — existing ones are untouched. The change GitHub pioneered in 2020 has, five years on, reached Git itself, the very foundation of the ecosystem.

As a somewhat amusing aside, the Git project's own development repository still runs on a "master" branch today. Don't force the change; coexist with what already exists — this pragmatic approach overlaps with our own stance, described below.

What Is Inclusive Naming?

Beyond the example above, the IT industry has been advancing "inclusive naming" — eliminating discriminatory or biased language in favor of more inclusive wording. As part of this movement, major IT companies including IBM, Red Hat, VMware, Cisco, and the Linux Foundation joined forces in 2020 to form the Inclusive Naming Initiative (INI).

INI's goal is to identify discriminatory or exclusionary terms used in software and documentation and replace them with neutral, inclusive expressions. For example, it recommends replacing "master/slave" with neutral terms such as "primary/secondary" or "leader/follower."

INI remains active, but looking at its communications as of 2026, a somewhat defensive framing has become noticeable: "this is not cancel culture, but the deliberate creation of a culture that reflects our values." The proponents, too, are clearly aware of the shift in the public mood described below. Meanwhile, at the IETF, which sets Internet standards, a document proposing inclusive terminology has been revised through 14 versions over more than five years without ever becoming an official RFC. Reaching consensus at the standards-body level is, evidently, just that difficult on this topic.

In the Japanese business environment, awareness of the issue runs less deep, since the cultural background is not shared to the same extent as in the English-speaking world — but foreign-affiliated companies and their business partners increasingly ask for this kind of terminology review.

Against that backdrop, one term I had my own doubts about was 商品マスター (shohin master, "product master"). A colleague who had come from IBM once raised it casually, and while I thought "fair point," I realized I didn't understand the issue deeply — which is what led me to research it and write this article.

On the Japanese Term "Product Master" (商品マスター)

In Japanese business, the term "product master" (商品マスター) is commonly used. The "master" here refers to a canonical reference or authoritative source of data, and carries no discriminatory meaning.

Nevertheless, regardless of the correct definition, some people may feel uncomfortable with the word "master" itself. In such cases, alternatives worth considering include:

Product catalog: a list or catalog of products.
Product DB: a database that centrally manages product information.

Adjusting to Context and Audience

The reason "master" has been called into question lies in its historical use in technical contexts premised on a master/slave relationship. That said, not every use of "master" is inappropriate — depending on context, it often carries positive meanings such as "standard," "expert," or "mentor."

What matters is being able to consider how a word will be received by a given audience in a given context. If the other person feels uncomfortable with a word, we adjust our wording accordingly — that flexibility is our stance.

On the Title "Scrum Master"

Incidentally, our own org chart includes the role "Scrum Master."

The "master" here differs from the master/slave context of domination: it refers to a facilitator who supports the team and guides development smoothly. It is an official term in agile development, widely used across the industry, and no clear alternative currently exists.

For that reason, we continue to use this job title, while staying mindful so that we can respond appropriately as context and circumstances evolve.

[2026 Update] The 2025 Backlash — What Remains as DEI Retreats?

Meanwhile, over the past year or so, a movement in exactly the opposite direction has unfolded. After the change of administration in the United States in January 2025, an executive order abolished federal DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programs. In its wake, major tech companies such as Meta, Amazon, and Alphabet (Google) removed DEI references from their annual reports and scaled back related programs. As outward-facing corporate messaging, the word "DEI" has retreated rapidly.

The reality is more nuanced, though: an industry survey reports that only 5% of companies have completely abandoned their DEI efforts, and a majority still treat them as a priority. The signs come down, but the practice quietly continues — that seems closer to the truth.

What is fascinating here is that while words held up as slogans swing back with the political pendulum, changes that have settled into technical standards and infrastructure keep advancing regardless of it. In the very period when companies were erasing "DEI" from their reports, Git quietly decided to move to "main." And you will rarely see a developer who has switched to a main branch revert to master over the political climate. Language changes raised as gestures get rolled back; those that took root as tools remain — the story of these five years seems to teach exactly that lesson.

Word Choice Reflects Culture and Values

It may seem a small thing, but which words we use — and which we don't — reflects our values and becomes part of a person's or an organization's culture.

If a word might hurt someone through no fault of their own, being able to consider another way of saying it contributes, just a little, to a society where we respect one another — or is that too grand a claim?

That said, I also feel uneasy about political correctness taken too far. The backlash since 2025 may well be a sign that this unease was widely shared.

Still, having followed this five-year story, what strikes me is that the important thing has never changed. It is not about adopting words because they are fashionable or dropping them because they have gone out of style, but about knowing the background of words, context included, and being able to choose them appropriately for the audience and the situation. The chain of events from GitHub's change to Git's own decision, and the DEI backlash alike, ultimately point to the same conclusion. These remain my personal views, now shared again with this update.

References and Sources

The updated sections of this article are based on primary sources as of July 2026. The situation around DEI remains fluid, and these assessments may change with future developments.