Opposing view: GitHub's changing of `master` to `main` as the name of the default remote branch was not necessary and a huge waste of time for all parties involved.
...of one of the english speaking countries
The consensus seems to have gelled (few years ago, give or take a few years?) around every single open source project needing to have a specific "community guidelines" document - it was the new vogue established over the past few years by the body politic, and this lead to various promoters of new social paradigms to rename things that were taken at face value, i.e. "master-slave" in the context of database client-server architectures, or "master" branch as primary branch, etc.
These changes are trivial in retrospect, but contextually, the reversion of "participants will be tolerant of opposing views" seems to validate the notion that maybe excessive discourse around social mores aren't appropriate within the substructure of "writing new code that works, backporting features that are useful for others, etc"
The conflating of social justice goal-setting and software development is a swing and a miss, and if that's not completely clear by the context then I just want to apologize for stating what seems obvious to an external observer.