I guess I’ll just quote what I said in that thread:
Obviously inclusiveness is valuable, but I suspect birds being named after the obscure guys who made them known to science is the last thing on the list of reasons reducing the ability of people to get into birding. There’s a valid question as to whether they deserve to be honoured in common and scientific names for that contribution, but they aren’t being honoured for anything else about their lives or beliefs.
With regards to decolonization, the AOS can’t change scientific names (that was proposed for a flicker subspecies recently), and the practice of describing species with Latin names as their real names could well be considered colonialist. Colonization has unfortunately happened, we can’t undo it, and any efforts to undo it will have no clear limit. We could go as far as removing the reference to Amerigo Vespucci in American Robin! Cape May and Nashville Warblers seem more out of place to me.
Birds are one of the few taxa that have standardized common names, and that’s only in English as far as I know. That seems valuable to me, when I compare it with the chaos of insect or plant names, especially when newly coming to the hobby and having to learn all the names. However, I still see people using “Northern Oriole” and “Rufous-sided Towhee”, and those were changed for normal taxonomic reasons. Given that there’s a lot more resistance here and it’s affecting so many more species, I think a change as radical as this would break any standardization we have. Although perhaps that is moderated by everyone using eBird, which would presumably force everyone to adapt. Either way I’m guessing in a generation it would be mostly forgotten. I will admit my main resistance is just resistance to change, and I’d get over it eventually.