This link shows the problem of using master/slave. I think everyone in this thread is ok with moving away from using those terms. The problem is that the usage of master in terms of git, and github in particular, has nothing to do with master/slave. The word slave isn't even used in standard git or github parlance.

What you're saying is that all uses of the word master implies master/slave, which is what people are disagreeing with. In the recording industry, everyone uses the term master to denote the production copy of combined tracks. The tracks that make up a master are not slaves. In the same way that branches that make up a master vcs are not slaves.

In git parlance, master is where your builds come from for deployment. And branches are where you work on features. When branches are complete they merge back into master. How does this relate in any way to a master/slave definition? Based on the logic used, I would expect record studios to be moving away from using the word master as well.