Woof, sorry I misread a little; I thought you were advocating a full fork.
I know sometimes people file issues about language, but I've seen PRs for it too. I think this taps a little into the general sentiment that open source maintainers are doing a lot of work mostly for free and are therefore pretty (maybe overly) sensitive to people asking for changes, but that's kind of a separate issue. What I take issue with is:
> Other people then are free to reject your changes if they want, and you will be wrong to attack them for their choice.
First, I don't know if I'd use the word "attack" here, but that aside, I think leaving language like "master/slave" is wrong, even if a project chooses to. Just like I think leaving a buffer overflow in would be wrong.
I guess, thinking through it, you're taking issue with someone else setting a maintainer's priorities. I don't think filing issues is really doing that -- there are lots of issues on lots of projects, and if anything most people like it when they're filed because it helps them to improve their software.
And if you file an issue and no one touches it, even after months, it's natural to wonder if the team cares about the same things you care about. At some point, maybe after a couple pings or whatever, it's reasonable to conclude that they don't.
Is saying so an attack? I would argue that happens all the time with technical issues and our community doesn't find it exceptional. But when it comes to this language stuff, it seems like it's treated like a special case.
> just please do not expect others to do what you want, just because of your feelings and sensibilities
The issue of colonial language in software is about much more than "feelings and sensibilities". I'd encourage you to read up on how the language we use shapes the way we think about basically everything and thus how we behave. It's far too important to be dismissed.