I generally steer clear of politics, but would like to offer a couple of concepts that might be considered. First, in eliminating eponymous names
en masse may be throwing the baby out with the bath-water. In some cases the eponymous names may be for patrons who legitimately supported exploration, scientific research, etc., who don't deserve vilification. Second, the authors of the paper in question mention past colonialism as one one of the issues that would be addressed by the name changes. We must be careful that the imposition of new names doesn't reflect just another form of colonialism.
That being said, I do support some of the name changes, such as oldsquaw to long-tailed duck, that reflect racial insensitivity, but not wholesale changes without well-founded rationales.
Have fun,
Tom Curtis