> Changing master/slave to primary/replicas is more appropriate as it helps people understand what it is at first, has no bad baggage associated with it and eas

> Changing master/slave to primary/replicas is more appropriate as it helps people understand what it is at first, has no bad baggage associated with it and easier for non technical people to understand. 1. Master/slave may be more accurate than primary/replica, depending on the specifics. 2. There's no inherent baggage in master/slave, beyond what you bring to it. It's a concept, not a slur. There's nothing unethical about one computer being a slave to another. 3. The understanding of non-technical people is not an important consideration in technical terminology. Non-technical people don't know what HTTP means either. > If you know someone who was a slave, had it as apart of your family history or are currently living in illegal slavery the master/slave naming can be very offensive and in some cases trigger PTSD from events that occurred to you in the past. And this is where you lose all the reasonable people.