You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mesos.apache.org by Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> on 2015/06/01 23:18:44 UTC
[DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
"Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
discussion and call for a VOTE.
Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
name(s).
4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
Thanks!
-Adam-
P.S. My personal thoughts:
1. Mesos Worker [Node]
2. Mesos Worker or Agent
3. No
4. Carefully
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Paul Brett <pb...@twitter.com>.
-1 for the name change.
The master/slave terms in Mesos accurately describe the relationship
between the components using common engineering terms that predate modern
computing.
Human slavery is an abomination, but then so is murder. Would you have us
eliminate all references to kill in the code?
-- Paul
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:53 PM, haosdent <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> 1. Mesos Worker
> 2. Mesos Worker
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully. Should take care the compatible when upgrade.
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Dave Lester <da...@davelester.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> I've been using Master/Worker in presentations for the past 9 months and
>> it hasn't led to any confusion.
>>
>> 1. Mesos worker
>> 2. Mesos worker
>> 3. No
>> 4. Documentation, then API with a full deprecation cycle
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015, at 02:18 PM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
>>
>> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
>> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>>
>> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
>> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
>> discussion and call for a VOTE.
>> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
>> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
>> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
>> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>>
>> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
>> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
>> name(s).
>> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>>
>> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Adam-
>>
>> P.S. My personal thoughts:
>> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
>> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
>> 3. No
>> 4. Carefully
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Haosdent Huang
>
--
-- Paul Brett
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by haosdent <ha...@gmail.com>.
Hi Adam,
1. Mesos Worker
2. Mesos Worker
3. No
4. Carefully. Should take care the compatible when upgrade.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Dave Lester <da...@davelester.org> wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> I've been using Master/Worker in presentations for the past 9 months and
> it hasn't led to any confusion.
>
> 1. Mesos worker
> 2. Mesos worker
> 3. No
> 4. Documentation, then API with a full deprecation cycle
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015, at 02:18 PM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
>
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
>
>
>
--
Best Regards,
Haosdent Huang
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Maciej Strzelecki <ma...@crealytics.com>.
Please don't change the naming. There is absolutely no reason for it apart from rambling of a delusional, political-correctness maniac.
What happened to all the "inside jokes" and humour of the IT world - why are we letting the bacteria of political-correctness into IT?
Apart from the confusion, it will create an unnecessary architecture/provisioning changes in many, many places.
Possible benefits are *none*. Literally - *none*.
Please focus on the PRs that really matter and make apache-mesos a better product, this name-change is only a (pretty good) troll attempt.
(
also the logic that led You to changing the "slave" part is somewhat flawed - after all, we all are equal right? so there shouldn't be any "master" either.
Rename master to "democratically-elected-member-of-equal-rights-community - to match the insanity
after all, its only fair if we take into account all areas.
)
PS. First of April was 2 months ago.
Maciej Strzelecki
Operations Engineer
Tel: +49 30 6098381-50
Fax: +49 851-213728-88
E-mail: mstrzelecki@crealytics.de
www.crealytics.com<http://www.crealytics.com>
blog.crealytics.com
crealytics GmbH - Semantic PPC Advertising Technology
Brunngasse 1 - 94032 Passau - Germany
Oranienstraße 185 - 10999 Berlin - Germany
Managing directors: Andreas Reiffen, Christof König, Dr. Markus Kurch
Register court: Amtsgericht Passau, HRB 7466
Geschäftsführer: Andreas Reiffen, Christof König, Daniel Trost
Reg.-Gericht: Amtsgericht Passau, HRB 7466
________________________________
From: Alexander Rojas <al...@mesosphere.io>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 9:58 AM
To: user@mesos.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
+1 to Isabel's plan.
Times change, language change so lets not be anachronistic.
On 02 Jun 2015, at 22:19, Isabel Jimenez <co...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Adam,
1. Mesos Agent
2. Mesos Agent
3. No but is master-agent a logical coupling?
4. +1 Dave, documentation, then API, then rest of the code base. We should also make sure that we only have to change once and that we cover all the connotations that might offend.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Dave Lester <da...@davelester.org>> wrote:
Hi Adam,
I've been using Master/Worker in presentations for the past 9 months and it hasn't led to any confusion.
1. Mesos worker
2. Mesos worker
3. No
4. Documentation, then API with a full deprecation cycle
Dave
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015, at 02:18 PM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the discussion and call for a VOTE.
Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new name(s).
4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
Thanks!
-Adam-
P.S. My personal thoughts:
1. Mesos Worker [Node]
2. Mesos Worker or Agent
3. No
4. Carefully
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Alexander Rojas <al...@mesosphere.io>.
+1 to Isabel’s plan.
Times change, language change so lets not be anachronistic.
> On 02 Jun 2015, at 22:19, Isabel Jimenez <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> 1. Mesos Agent
> 2. Mesos Agent
> 3. No but is master-agent a logical coupling?
> 4. +1 Dave, documentation, then API, then rest of the code base. We should also make sure that we only have to change once and that we cover all the connotations that might offend.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Dave Lester <dave@davelester.org <ma...@davelester.org>> wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> I've been using Master/Worker in presentations for the past 9 months and it hasn't led to any confusion.
>
> 1. Mesos worker
> 2. Mesos worker
> 3. No
> 4. Documentation, then API with a full deprecation cycle
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015, at 02:18 PM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
>> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478>
>>
>> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the discussion and call for a VOTE.
>> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
>> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
>> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
>> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>>
>> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new name(s).
>> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>>
>> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Adam-
>>
>> P.S. My personal thoughts:
>> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
>> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
>> 3. No
>> 4. Carefully
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Hector Castro <he...@gmail.com>.
Similar to Brian, our Ansible work to setup a Mesos environment
aliased everything to leader/follower.
No doubt that making these changes will cause some pain, but I think
the positive effects it'll have on the Mesos community over time will
far outweigh the short term issues.
--
Hector
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Ken Sipe <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to Isabel
>
> On Jun 2, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Isabel Jimenez <co...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> 1. Mesos Agent
> 2. Mesos Agent
> 3. No but is master-agent a logical coupling?
> 4. +1 Dave, documentation, then API, then rest of the code base. We should
> also make sure that we only have to change once and that we cover all the
> connotations that might offend.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Dave Lester <da...@davelester.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> I've been using Master/Worker in presentations for the past 9 months and
>> it hasn't led to any confusion.
>>
>> 1. Mesos worker
>> 2. Mesos worker
>> 3. No
>> 4. Documentation, then API with a full deprecation cycle
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015, at 02:18 PM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
>>
>> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
>> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>>
>> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
>> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
>> discussion and call for a VOTE.
>> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
>> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
>> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
>> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>>
>> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
>> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
>> name(s).
>> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>>
>> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Adam-
>>
>> P.S. My personal thoughts:
>> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
>> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
>> 3. No
>> 4. Carefully
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Ken Sipe <ke...@gmail.com>.
+1 to Isabel
> On Jun 2, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Isabel Jimenez <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> 1. Mesos Agent
> 2. Mesos Agent
> 3. No but is master-agent a logical coupling?
> 4. +1 Dave, documentation, then API, then rest of the code base. We should also make sure that we only have to change once and that we cover all the connotations that might offend.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Dave Lester <dave@davelester.org <ma...@davelester.org>> wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> I've been using Master/Worker in presentations for the past 9 months and it hasn't led to any confusion.
>
> 1. Mesos worker
> 2. Mesos worker
> 3. No
> 4. Documentation, then API with a full deprecation cycle
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015, at 02:18 PM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
>> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478>
>>
>> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the discussion and call for a VOTE.
>> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
>> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
>> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
>> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>>
>> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new name(s).
>> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>>
>> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Adam-
>>
>> P.S. My personal thoughts:
>> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
>> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
>> 3. No
>> 4. Carefully
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Isabel Jimenez <co...@gmail.com>.
Hi Adam,
1. Mesos Agent
2. Mesos Agent
3. No but is master-agent a logical coupling?
4. +1 Dave, documentation, then API, then rest of the code base. We should
also make sure that we only have to change once and that we cover all the
connotations that might offend.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Dave Lester <da...@davelester.org> wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> I've been using Master/Worker in presentations for the past 9 months and
> it hasn't led to any confusion.
>
> 1. Mesos worker
> 2. Mesos worker
> 3. No
> 4. Documentation, then API with a full deprecation cycle
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015, at 02:18 PM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
>
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Dave Lester <da...@davelester.org>.
Hi Adam,
I've been using Master/Worker in presentations for the past 9 months and
it hasn't led to any confusion.
1. Mesos worker
2. Mesos worker
3. No
4. Documentation, then API with a full deprecation cycle
Dave
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015, at 02:18 PM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name
> than "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and
> if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from
> the discussion and call for a VOTE. Here are the questions I would
> like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we
> don't necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding
> the new name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks! -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Steven Borrelli <st...@aster.is>.
+1
I’d like to voice my support for removing the master/slave nomenclature. It’s our policy at aster.is <http://aster.is/> that we don’t use that terminology in our projects or presentations.
Currently we use ‘leader/follower’, but we are open to using whatever terms the community comes up with. We’re also willing to contribute resources to help get this accomplished.
We also like queen/drone.
1. Mesos follower. I’m fine with worker or compute. Not a fan of minion.
2. mesos-<term>
3. We use the term ‘leader’ right now.
4. - Update internal code references & UI (have duplicate API endpoints)
- update packages & launch scripts, systemd service files, docker containers. Luckily, the mesos binary doesn’t need to be changed, just the start scripts and locations in /etc. For N versions we can update launch scripts to look for things like /etc/mesos-master config, environment files, and docker containers for backwards compatibility.
- make changes final by Mesoscon in August, add deprecation warnings
- N + x version of Mesos, remove old UI endpoints and usage of master/slave config files
Cheers,
Steven Borrelli
> On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:18 PM, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478>
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
Re: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io>.
James, I was indeed counting "master/slave, no change needed" as -1 for
Item 0, but left them out of the summary for Item 1.
Note that this is a [DISCUSS] thread, not a [VOTE] thread, so we're not
officially voting yet, just gathering ideas from the community. All I was
doing with the (manual) fuzzy matching was trying to summarize what people
have been saying so far. Once the one week discussion period is over, we
will create votable proposals and call for official votes.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Brenden Matthews <br...@diddyinc.com>
wrote:
> +1 to what Adam wrote.
>
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Sam Salisbury <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Master/Minion +1
>>
>> On 5 June 2015 at 15:14, CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "+1 master/slave, no change needed." is the same as
>>> "master/slave" I.E. keep the nomenclature as it currently is
>>>
>>> This means keep the name 'master' and keep the name 'slave'.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you applying fuzzy math or kalman filters to your summations below?
>>>
>>> It looks to me, tallying things up, Master is kept as it is
>>> and 'Slave' is kept as it is. There did not seem to be any consensus
>>> on the new names if the pair names are updated. Or you can vote
>>> separately on each name? On an real ballot, you enter the choices,
>>> vote according to your needs, tally the results and publish them.
>>> Applying a 'fuzzy filter' to what has occurred in this debate so far
>>> is ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Why not repost the question like this or something on a more fair
>>> voting preference:
>>>
>>> ---------------->
>>> Please vote for your favourite Name-pair in Mesos, for what is currently
>>> "Master-Slave". Note Master-Slave is the "no change" vote option.
>>>
>>> [] Master-Slave
>>> [] Mesos-Slave
>>> [] Mesos-Minion
>>> [] Master-Minion
>>> [] Master-Follower
>>> [] Mesos-Follower
>>> [] Master-worker
>>> [] Mesos-worker
>>> [] etc etc
>>>
>>> <-----------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Tally the result and go from there.
>>> James
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/05/2015 04:27 AM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wow, what a response! Allow me to attempt to summarize the sentiment so
>>>> far.
>>>>
>>>> Let's start with the implicit question,
>>>> _0. Should we rename Mesos Slave?_
>>>> +1 (Explicit approval) 12, including 7 from JIRA
>>>> +0.5 (Implicit approval, suggested alternate name) 18
>>>> -0.5 (Some disapproval, wouldn't block it) 5, including 1 from JIRA
>>>> -1 (Strong disapproval) 16
>>>>
>>>> _1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?_
>>>> Worker: +10, -2
>>>> Agent: +6
>>>> Follower (+Leader): +4, -1
>>>> Minion: +2, -1
>>>> Drone (+Director/Queen): +2
>>>> Resource-Agent/Provider: +2
>>>>
>>>> _2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?_
>>>> Pretty much everybody says that it should be the same as the node.
>>>>
>>>> _3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?_
>>>> Most say No, except when slave's new name has a preferred pairing (e.g.
>>>> Follower/Leader)
>>>>
>>>> _4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?_
>>>> To calm any fears, we would have to go through a full deprecation cycle,
>>>> introducing the new name in one release, while maintaining
>>>> symlinks/aliases/duplicate-endpoints for the old name. In a subsequent
>>>> release, we can remove the old name/endpoints. As we introduce the new
>>>> Mesos 1.0 HTTP API, we will already be introducing breaking API changes,
>>>> so this would be an ideal time to do a rename.
>>>>
>>>> Whether or not we decide to officially change the name in the code/APIs,
>>>> some organizations are already using alternative terminologies in their
>>>> presentations/scripts. We could at least try to agree upon a recommended
>>>> alternative name for these purposes.
>>>>
>>>> _5. How do we vote on this?_
>>>> First, FYI: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>> It seems there are two potentially separate items to vote on:
>>>>
>>>> Prop-A: Rename Mesos-Slave in the code/APIs
>>>> Qualifies as a "code modification", so a negative (binding) vote
>>>> constitutes a veto. Note that there are no -1s from the Mesos PMC yet.
>>>> After this week of discussion where the community is invited to share
>>>> their thoughts/opinions, we will call for an official VOTE from the PMC
>>>> members. The proposal will pass if there are at least three positive
>>>> votes and no negative ones.
>>>>
>>>> Prop-B: Recommended Alternative Name for "Slave"
>>>> This can follow the common format of majority rule. We can gather
>>>> recommendations during this one week discussion period, and then vote on
>>>> the top 2-3 finalists.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Emilien Kenler <ekenler@wizcorp.jp
>>>> <ma...@wizcorp.jp>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 for keeping master/slave.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal)
>>>> <panyungao@huawei.com <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 master/slave. ____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> These are only terminologies in software architecture. They
>>>> have different definitions from those of social or political
>>>> view. ____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> *发件人:*zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com
>>>> <ma...@gmail.com>]
>>>> *发送时间:*2015年6月5日10:40
>>>> *收件人:*user@mesos.apache.org <ma...@mesos.apache.org>
>>>> *主题:*Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> +1 master/slave, no change needed.____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> 2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <ankur@malloc64.com
>>>> <ma...@malloc64.com>>:____
>>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> +1 master/slave
>>>>
>>>> James made some very good points and there is no technical
>>>> reason for
>>>> wasting time on this.
>>>>
>>>> On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
>>>> > +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>>>> >
>>>> > I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave
>>>> is a
>>>> > well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined).
>>>> This
>>>> > is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least
>>>> as far
>>>> > as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing
>>>> software/systems
>>>> > nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a
>>>> waste of
>>>> > time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who
>>>> have
>>>> > adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early
>>>> stages
>>>> > of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
>>>> > whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were
>>>> the
>>>> > case ;)
>>>> >
>>>> > Cheers,
>>>> >
>>>> > Jim
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <erenguven0@gmail.com
>>>> <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>> > <mailto:erenguven0@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > +1 master/slave, no change needed
>>>> >
>>>> > Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit.
>>>> Also
>>>> > agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause
>>>> upgrade
>>>> > pains.
>>>> >
>>>> > Cheers
>>>> >
>>>> > On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xiaods@gmail.com
>>>> <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>> > <mailto:xiaods@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for
>>>> any
>>>> > circumstance.
>>>> >
>>>> > 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <
>>>> james.defelice@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>> > <mailto:james.defelice@gmail.com <mailto:
>>>> james.defelice@gmail.com>>>:
>>>> >
>>>> > -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
>>>> >
>>>> > +1 master/slave; no change needed
>>>> >
>>>> > There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology
>>>> change at
>>>> > this point. If people want to change the names in their client
>>>> > presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific
>>>> meaning
>>>> > that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
>>>> > elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are
>>>> technical
>>>> > jargon and have no social implications within such context.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <
>>>> toenshoff@me.com <ma...@me.com>
>>>> > <mailto:toenshoff@me.com <ma...@me.com>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker
>>>> [process] 3.
>>>> >> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less
>>>> changes.
>>>> >> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
>>>> >> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the
>>>> "official"
>>>> >> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
>>>> >> step.
>>>> >
>>>> > +1
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > -- James DeFelice585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> <tel:
>>>> 585.241.9488
>>>> <tel:585.241.9488>> (voice)
>>>> >650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> <tel:650.649.6071
>>>> <tel:650.649.6071>> (fax)
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com <
>>>> http://gmail.com>
>>>> > <http://gmail.com>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>
>>>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
>>>> tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
>>>> sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
>>>> afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
>>>> ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
>>>> cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
>>>> =niNh
>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> <http://www.wizcorp.jp/> Emilien Kenler
>>>> Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS
>>>> + 81 (0)3-4550-1448|Website <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter
>>>> <https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook
>>>> <http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn
>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Brenden Matthews <br...@diddyinc.com>.
+1 to what Adam wrote.
1. Mesos Worker [Node]
2. Mesos Worker or Agent
3. No
4. Carefully
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Sam Salisbury <sa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Master/Minion +1
>
> On 5 June 2015 at 15:14, CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "+1 master/slave, no change needed." is the same as
>> "master/slave" I.E. keep the nomenclature as it currently is
>>
>> This means keep the name 'master' and keep the name 'slave'.
>>
>>
>> Are you applying fuzzy math or kalman filters to your summations below?
>>
>> It looks to me, tallying things up, Master is kept as it is
>> and 'Slave' is kept as it is. There did not seem to be any consensus
>> on the new names if the pair names are updated. Or you can vote
>> separately on each name? On an real ballot, you enter the choices,
>> vote according to your needs, tally the results and publish them.
>> Applying a 'fuzzy filter' to what has occurred in this debate so far
>> is ridiculous.
>>
>> Why not repost the question like this or something on a more fair
>> voting preference:
>>
>> ---------------->
>> Please vote for your favourite Name-pair in Mesos, for what is currently
>> "Master-Slave". Note Master-Slave is the "no change" vote option.
>>
>> [] Master-Slave
>> [] Mesos-Slave
>> [] Mesos-Minion
>> [] Master-Minion
>> [] Master-Follower
>> [] Mesos-Follower
>> [] Master-worker
>> [] Mesos-worker
>> [] etc etc
>>
>> <-----------------
>>
>>
>> Tally the result and go from there.
>> James
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/05/2015 04:27 AM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
>>
>>> Wow, what a response! Allow me to attempt to summarize the sentiment so
>>> far.
>>>
>>> Let's start with the implicit question,
>>> _0. Should we rename Mesos Slave?_
>>> +1 (Explicit approval) 12, including 7 from JIRA
>>> +0.5 (Implicit approval, suggested alternate name) 18
>>> -0.5 (Some disapproval, wouldn't block it) 5, including 1 from JIRA
>>> -1 (Strong disapproval) 16
>>>
>>> _1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?_
>>> Worker: +10, -2
>>> Agent: +6
>>> Follower (+Leader): +4, -1
>>> Minion: +2, -1
>>> Drone (+Director/Queen): +2
>>> Resource-Agent/Provider: +2
>>>
>>> _2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?_
>>> Pretty much everybody says that it should be the same as the node.
>>>
>>> _3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?_
>>> Most say No, except when slave's new name has a preferred pairing (e.g.
>>> Follower/Leader)
>>>
>>> _4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?_
>>> To calm any fears, we would have to go through a full deprecation cycle,
>>> introducing the new name in one release, while maintaining
>>> symlinks/aliases/duplicate-endpoints for the old name. In a subsequent
>>> release, we can remove the old name/endpoints. As we introduce the new
>>> Mesos 1.0 HTTP API, we will already be introducing breaking API changes,
>>> so this would be an ideal time to do a rename.
>>>
>>> Whether or not we decide to officially change the name in the code/APIs,
>>> some organizations are already using alternative terminologies in their
>>> presentations/scripts. We could at least try to agree upon a recommended
>>> alternative name for these purposes.
>>>
>>> _5. How do we vote on this?_
>>> First, FYI: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>> It seems there are two potentially separate items to vote on:
>>>
>>> Prop-A: Rename Mesos-Slave in the code/APIs
>>> Qualifies as a "code modification", so a negative (binding) vote
>>> constitutes a veto. Note that there are no -1s from the Mesos PMC yet.
>>> After this week of discussion where the community is invited to share
>>> their thoughts/opinions, we will call for an official VOTE from the PMC
>>> members. The proposal will pass if there are at least three positive
>>> votes and no negative ones.
>>>
>>> Prop-B: Recommended Alternative Name for "Slave"
>>> This can follow the common format of majority rule. We can gather
>>> recommendations during this one week discussion period, and then vote on
>>> the top 2-3 finalists.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Emilien Kenler <ekenler@wizcorp.jp
>>> <ma...@wizcorp.jp>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 for keeping master/slave.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal)
>>> <panyungao@huawei.com <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 master/slave. ____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> These are only terminologies in software architecture. They
>>> have different definitions from those of social or political
>>> view. ____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> *发件人:*zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com
>>> <ma...@gmail.com>]
>>> *发送时间:*2015年6月5日10:40
>>> *收件人:*user@mesos.apache.org <ma...@mesos.apache.org>
>>> *主题:*Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> +1 master/slave, no change needed.____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> 2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <ankur@malloc64.com
>>> <ma...@malloc64.com>>:____
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> +1 master/slave
>>>
>>> James made some very good points and there is no technical
>>> reason for
>>> wasting time on this.
>>>
>>> On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
>>> > +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>>> >
>>> > I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave
>>> is a
>>> > well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined).
>>> This
>>> > is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least
>>> as far
>>> > as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing
>>> software/systems
>>> > nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a
>>> waste of
>>> > time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who
>>> have
>>> > adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early
>>> stages
>>> > of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
>>> > whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were
>>> the
>>> > case ;)
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> >
>>> > Jim
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <erenguven0@gmail.com
>>> <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> > <mailto:erenguven0@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > +1 master/slave, no change needed
>>> >
>>> > Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit.
>>> Also
>>> > agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause
>>> upgrade
>>> > pains.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers
>>> >
>>> > On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xiaods@gmail.com <mailto:
>>> xiaods@gmail.com>
>>> > <mailto:xiaods@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
>>> > circumstance.
>>> >
>>> > 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <
>>> james.defelice@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> > <mailto:james.defelice@gmail.com <mailto:
>>> james.defelice@gmail.com>>>:
>>> >
>>> > -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
>>> >
>>> > +1 master/slave; no change needed
>>> >
>>> > There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology
>>> change at
>>> > this point. If people want to change the names in their client
>>> > presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific
>>> meaning
>>> > that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
>>> > elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are
>>> technical
>>> > jargon and have no social implications within such context.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <
>>> toenshoff@me.com <ma...@me.com>
>>> > <mailto:toenshoff@me.com <ma...@me.com>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process]
>>> 3.
>>> >> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less
>>> changes.
>>> >> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
>>> >> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the
>>> "official"
>>> >> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
>>> >> step.
>>> >
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -- James DeFelice585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> <tel:
>>> 585.241.9488
>>> <tel:585.241.9488>> (voice)
>>> >650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> <tel:650.649.6071
>>> <tel:650.649.6071>> (fax)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com <
>>> http://gmail.com>
>>> > <http://gmail.com>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
>>> tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
>>> sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
>>> afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
>>> ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
>>> cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
>>> =niNh
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> <http://www.wizcorp.jp/> Emilien Kenler
>>> Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS
>>> + 81 (0)3-4550-1448|Website <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter
>>> <https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook
>>> <http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn
>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Brian Topping <br...@gmail.com>.
The moment it costs money for deployments to change these names, I'm "+1 no change — keep master/slave".
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/mesos-user/201506.mbox/%3c556F52CE.1050600@tampabay.rr.com%3e <https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/mesos-user/201506.mbox/%3C556F52CE.1050600@tampabay.rr.com%3E> kind of summarizes it for me.
> On Jun 9, 2015, at 4:55 AM, Lawrence Rau <la...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> +1 no change — keep master/slave
>
>
>> On Jun 8, 2015, at 4:17 PM, Steven Schlansker <ss...@opentable.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2015, at 1:12 AM, Aaron Carey <ac...@ilm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been following this thread with interest, it draws a lot of parallels with similar problems my wife faces as a teacher (and I imagine this happens in other government/public sector organisations, earlier in this thread James pointed me to an interested Wikipedia article which suggested this also happens occasionally in software: eg County of Los Angeles in 2003). Every few years teachers are told to change the words used to describe various things related to kids with minority backgrounds, from underprivileged families or with disabilities and so on, usually to stop other children from using them as derogatory terms or insults. It works for a while and then the pupils catch on and start using the new words and the cycle repeats.
>>>
>>> I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that if you do decide to change the naming of master/slave because some naughty programmers in the community have been using the terms offensively, you better make damn sure you choose new terms which aren't likely to cause offence in the future and require the whole renaming process to run again. Which is why I'm voting for:
>>>
>>> +1 Gru/Minion
>>
>> Which then is great right up until Universal Pictures sues the Apache foundation to get "Gru" changed. Plus "master/slave" is immediately obvious to anyone working in software. I had to search the web to even figure out what "Gru" was, and then it was not even the first result... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Intelligence_Directorate_%28Russia%29 )
>>
>>>
>>> There could also be another option: These terms are all being used to describe a master/slave relationship, the mesos master is in charge, it assigns work to the slaves and ensures that they carry it out. I'd suggest that whatever you call this pair, the relationship will always be one of domination and servitude. Perhaps what is really needed here is to get rid of the concept of a master altogether and re-architect mesos so all nodes in the cluster are equal and reach a consensus together about work distribution and so on?
>>
>> I propose all processes, regardless of function, should be "mesos-comrade" to ensure none of them feel slighted :)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Nikolay Borodachev [nborod@adobe.com]
>>> Sent: 06 June 2015 04:34
>>> To: user@mesos.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>>>
>>> +1 master/slave – no need to change
>>>
>>> From: Sam Salisbury [mailto:samsalisbury@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8:31 AM
>>> To: user@mesos.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>>>
>>> Master/Minion +1
>>>
>>> On 5 June 2015 at 15:14, CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "+1 master/slave, no change needed." is the same as
>>> "master/slave" I.E. keep the nomenclature as it currently is
>>>
>>> This means keep the name 'master' and keep the name 'slave'.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you applying fuzzy math or kalman filters to your summations below?
>>>
>>> It looks to me, tallying things up, Master is kept as it is
>>> and 'Slave' is kept as it is. There did not seem to be any consensus
>>> on the new names if the pair names are updated. Or you can vote separately on each name? On an real ballot, you enter the choices,
>>> vote according to your needs, tally the results and publish them.
>>> Applying a 'fuzzy filter' to what has occurred in this debate so far
>>> is ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Why not repost the question like this or something on a more fair
>>> voting preference:
>>>
>>> ---------------->
>>> Please vote for your favourite Name-pair in Mesos, for what is currently
>>> "Master-Slave". Note Master-Slave is the "no change" vote option.
>>>
>>> [] Master-Slave
>>> [] Mesos-Slave
>>> [] Mesos-Minion
>>> [] Master-Minion
>>> [] Master-Follower
>>> [] Mesos-Follower
>>> [] Master-worker
>>> [] Mesos-worker
>>> [] etc etc
>>>
>>> <-----------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Tally the result and go from there.
>>> James
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/05/2015 04:27 AM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
>>> Wow, what a response! Allow me to attempt to summarize the sentiment so far.
>>>
>>> Let's start with the implicit question,
>>> _0. Should we rename Mesos Slave?_
>>> +1 (Explicit approval) 12, including 7 from JIRA
>>> +0.5 (Implicit approval, suggested alternate name) 18
>>> -0.5 (Some disapproval, wouldn't block it) 5, including 1 from JIRA
>>> -1 (Strong disapproval) 16
>>>
>>> _1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?_
>>> Worker: +10, -2
>>> Agent: +6
>>> Follower (+Leader): +4, -1
>>> Minion: +2, -1
>>> Drone (+Director/Queen): +2
>>> Resource-Agent/Provider: +2
>>>
>>> _2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?_
>>> Pretty much everybody says that it should be the same as the node.
>>>
>>> _3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?_
>>> Most say No, except when slave's new name has a preferred pairing (e.g.
>>> Follower/Leader)
>>>
>>> _4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?_
>>> To calm any fears, we would have to go through a full deprecation cycle,
>>> introducing the new name in one release, while maintaining
>>> symlinks/aliases/duplicate-endpoints for the old name. In a subsequent
>>> release, we can remove the old name/endpoints. As we introduce the new
>>> Mesos 1.0 HTTP API, we will already be introducing breaking API changes,
>>> so this would be an ideal time to do a rename.
>>>
>>> Whether or not we decide to officially change the name in the code/APIs,
>>> some organizations are already using alternative terminologies in their
>>> presentations/scripts. We could at least try to agree upon a recommended
>>> alternative name for these purposes.
>>>
>>> _5. How do we vote on this?_
>>> First, FYI: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>> It seems there are two potentially separate items to vote on:
>>>
>>> Prop-A: Rename Mesos-Slave in the code/APIs
>>> Qualifies as a "code modification", so a negative (binding) vote
>>> constitutes a veto. Note that there are no -1s from the Mesos PMC yet.
>>> After this week of discussion where the community is invited to share
>>> their thoughts/opinions, we will call for an official VOTE from the PMC
>>> members. The proposal will pass if there are at least three positive
>>> votes and no negative ones.
>>>
>>> Prop-B: Recommended Alternative Name for "Slave"
>>> This can follow the common format of majority rule. We can gather
>>> recommendations during this one week discussion period, and then vote on
>>> the top 2-3 finalists.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Emilien Kenler <ekenler@wizcorp.jp
>>> <ma...@wizcorp.jp>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 for keeping master/slave.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal)
>>> <panyungao@huawei.com <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 master/slave. ____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> These are only terminologies in software architecture. They
>>> have different definitions from those of social or political
>>> view. ____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> *发件人:*zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com
>>> <ma...@gmail.com>]
>>> *发送时间:*2015年6月5日10:40
>>> *收件人:*user@mesos.apache.org <ma...@mesos.apache.org>
>>> *主题:*Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> +1 master/slave, no change needed.____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>> 2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <ankur@malloc64.com
>>> <ma...@malloc64.com>>:____
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> +1 master/slave
>>>
>>> James made some very good points and there is no technical
>>> reason for
>>> wasting time on this.
>>>
>>> On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
>>>> +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is a
>>>> well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined). This
>>>> is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as far
>>>> as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
>>>> nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste of
>>>> time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
>>>> adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early stages
>>>> of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
>>>> whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
>>>> case ;)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <erenguven0@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>> <mailto:erenguven0@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 master/slave, no change needed
>>>>
>>>> Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
>>>> agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade
>>>> pains.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xiaods@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>> <mailto:xiaods@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
>>>> circumstance.
>>>>
>>>> 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <james.defelice@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>> <mailto:james.defelice@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>:
>>>>
>>>> -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
>>>>
>>>> +1 master/slave; no change needed
>>>>
>>>> There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at
>>>> this point. If people want to change the names in their client
>>>> presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning
>>>> that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
>>>> elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technical
>>>> jargon and have no social implications within such context.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <toenshoff@me.com <ma...@me.com>
>>>> <mailto:toenshoff@me.com <ma...@me.com>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process] 3.
>>>>> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
>>>>> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
>>>>> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official"
>>>>> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
>>>>> step.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- James DeFelice585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> <tel:585.241.9488
>>> <tel:585.241.9488>> (voice)
>>>> 650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> <tel:650.649.6071
>>> <tel:650.649.6071>> (fax)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
>>>> <http://gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
>>> tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
>>> sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
>>> afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
>>> ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
>>> cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
>>> =niNh
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----____
>>>
>>> __ __
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> <http://www.wizcorp.jp/> Emilien Kenler
>>> Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS
>>> + 81 (0)3-4550-1448|Website <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter
>>> <https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook
>>> <http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn
>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Lawrence Rau <la...@mac.com>.
+1 no change — keep master/slave
> On Jun 8, 2015, at 4:17 PM, Steven Schlansker <ss...@opentable.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 8, 2015, at 1:12 AM, Aaron Carey <ac...@ilm.com> wrote:
>
>> I've been following this thread with interest, it draws a lot of parallels with similar problems my wife faces as a teacher (and I imagine this happens in other government/public sector organisations, earlier in this thread James pointed me to an interested Wikipedia article which suggested this also happens occasionally in software: eg County of Los Angeles in 2003). Every few years teachers are told to change the words used to describe various things related to kids with minority backgrounds, from underprivileged families or with disabilities and so on, usually to stop other children from using them as derogatory terms or insults. It works for a while and then the pupils catch on and start using the new words and the cycle repeats.
>>
>> I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that if you do decide to change the naming of master/slave because some naughty programmers in the community have been using the terms offensively, you better make damn sure you choose new terms which aren't likely to cause offence in the future and require the whole renaming process to run again. Which is why I'm voting for:
>>
>> +1 Gru/Minion
>
> Which then is great right up until Universal Pictures sues the Apache foundation to get "Gru" changed. Plus "master/slave" is immediately obvious to anyone working in software. I had to search the web to even figure out what "Gru" was, and then it was not even the first result... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Intelligence_Directorate_%28Russia%29 )
>
>>
>> There could also be another option: These terms are all being used to describe a master/slave relationship, the mesos master is in charge, it assigns work to the slaves and ensures that they carry it out. I'd suggest that whatever you call this pair, the relationship will always be one of domination and servitude. Perhaps what is really needed here is to get rid of the concept of a master altogether and re-architect mesos so all nodes in the cluster are equal and reach a consensus together about work distribution and so on?
>
> I propose all processes, regardless of function, should be "mesos-comrade" to ensure none of them feel slighted :)
>
>>
>>
>> From: Nikolay Borodachev [nborod@adobe.com]
>> Sent: 06 June 2015 04:34
>> To: user@mesos.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>>
>> +1 master/slave – no need to change
>>
>> From: Sam Salisbury [mailto:samsalisbury@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8:31 AM
>> To: user@mesos.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>>
>> Master/Minion +1
>>
>> On 5 June 2015 at 15:14, CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> "+1 master/slave, no change needed." is the same as
>> "master/slave" I.E. keep the nomenclature as it currently is
>>
>> This means keep the name 'master' and keep the name 'slave'.
>>
>>
>> Are you applying fuzzy math or kalman filters to your summations below?
>>
>> It looks to me, tallying things up, Master is kept as it is
>> and 'Slave' is kept as it is. There did not seem to be any consensus
>> on the new names if the pair names are updated. Or you can vote separately on each name? On an real ballot, you enter the choices,
>> vote according to your needs, tally the results and publish them.
>> Applying a 'fuzzy filter' to what has occurred in this debate so far
>> is ridiculous.
>>
>> Why not repost the question like this or something on a more fair
>> voting preference:
>>
>> ---------------->
>> Please vote for your favourite Name-pair in Mesos, for what is currently
>> "Master-Slave". Note Master-Slave is the "no change" vote option.
>>
>> [] Master-Slave
>> [] Mesos-Slave
>> [] Mesos-Minion
>> [] Master-Minion
>> [] Master-Follower
>> [] Mesos-Follower
>> [] Master-worker
>> [] Mesos-worker
>> [] etc etc
>>
>> <-----------------
>>
>>
>> Tally the result and go from there.
>> James
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/05/2015 04:27 AM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
>> Wow, what a response! Allow me to attempt to summarize the sentiment so far.
>>
>> Let's start with the implicit question,
>> _0. Should we rename Mesos Slave?_
>> +1 (Explicit approval) 12, including 7 from JIRA
>> +0.5 (Implicit approval, suggested alternate name) 18
>> -0.5 (Some disapproval, wouldn't block it) 5, including 1 from JIRA
>> -1 (Strong disapproval) 16
>>
>> _1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?_
>> Worker: +10, -2
>> Agent: +6
>> Follower (+Leader): +4, -1
>> Minion: +2, -1
>> Drone (+Director/Queen): +2
>> Resource-Agent/Provider: +2
>>
>> _2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?_
>> Pretty much everybody says that it should be the same as the node.
>>
>> _3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?_
>> Most say No, except when slave's new name has a preferred pairing (e.g.
>> Follower/Leader)
>>
>> _4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?_
>> To calm any fears, we would have to go through a full deprecation cycle,
>> introducing the new name in one release, while maintaining
>> symlinks/aliases/duplicate-endpoints for the old name. In a subsequent
>> release, we can remove the old name/endpoints. As we introduce the new
>> Mesos 1.0 HTTP API, we will already be introducing breaking API changes,
>> so this would be an ideal time to do a rename.
>>
>> Whether or not we decide to officially change the name in the code/APIs,
>> some organizations are already using alternative terminologies in their
>> presentations/scripts. We could at least try to agree upon a recommended
>> alternative name for these purposes.
>>
>> _5. How do we vote on this?_
>> First, FYI: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>> It seems there are two potentially separate items to vote on:
>>
>> Prop-A: Rename Mesos-Slave in the code/APIs
>> Qualifies as a "code modification", so a negative (binding) vote
>> constitutes a veto. Note that there are no -1s from the Mesos PMC yet.
>> After this week of discussion where the community is invited to share
>> their thoughts/opinions, we will call for an official VOTE from the PMC
>> members. The proposal will pass if there are at least three positive
>> votes and no negative ones.
>>
>> Prop-B: Recommended Alternative Name for "Slave"
>> This can follow the common format of majority rule. We can gather
>> recommendations during this one week discussion period, and then vote on
>> the top 2-3 finalists.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Emilien Kenler <ekenler@wizcorp.jp
>> <ma...@wizcorp.jp>> wrote:
>>
>> +1 for keeping master/slave.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal)
>> <panyungao@huawei.com <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>
>> +1 master/slave. ____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> These are only terminologies in software architecture. They
>> have different definitions from those of social or political
>> view. ____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> *发件人:*zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>]
>> *发送时间:*2015年6月5日10:40
>> *收件人:*user@mesos.apache.org <ma...@mesos.apache.org>
>> *主题:*Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> +1 master/slave, no change needed.____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> 2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <ankur@malloc64.com
>> <ma...@malloc64.com>>:____
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> +1 master/slave
>>
>> James made some very good points and there is no technical
>> reason for
>> wasting time on this.
>>
>> On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
>>> +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>>>
>>> I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is a
>>> well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined). This
>>> is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as far
>>> as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
>>> nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste of
>>> time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
>>> adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early stages
>>> of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
>>> whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
>>> case ;)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <erenguven0@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> <mailto:erenguven0@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 master/slave, no change needed
>>>
>>> Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
>>> agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade
>>> pains.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xiaods@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> <mailto:xiaods@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
>>> circumstance.
>>>
>>> 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <james.defelice@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> <mailto:james.defelice@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>:
>>>
>>> -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
>>>
>>> +1 master/slave; no change needed
>>>
>>> There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at
>>> this point. If people want to change the names in their client
>>> presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning
>>> that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
>>> elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technical
>>> jargon and have no social implications within such context.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <toenshoff@me.com <ma...@me.com>
>>> <mailto:toenshoff@me.com <ma...@me.com>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process] 3.
>>>> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
>>>> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
>>>> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official"
>>>> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
>>>> step.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- James DeFelice585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> <tel:585.241.9488
>> <tel:585.241.9488>> (voice)
>>> 650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> <tel:650.649.6071
>> <tel:650.649.6071>> (fax)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
>>> <http://gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
>> tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
>> sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
>> afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
>> ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
>> cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
>> =niNh
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> <http://www.wizcorp.jp/> Emilien Kenler
>> Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS
>> + 81 (0)3-4550-1448|Website <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook
>> <http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Steven Schlansker <ss...@opentable.com>.
On Jun 8, 2015, at 1:12 AM, Aaron Carey <ac...@ilm.com> wrote:
> I've been following this thread with interest, it draws a lot of parallels with similar problems my wife faces as a teacher (and I imagine this happens in other government/public sector organisations, earlier in this thread James pointed me to an interested Wikipedia article which suggested this also happens occasionally in software: eg County of Los Angeles in 2003). Every few years teachers are told to change the words used to describe various things related to kids with minority backgrounds, from underprivileged families or with disabilities and so on, usually to stop other children from using them as derogatory terms or insults. It works for a while and then the pupils catch on and start using the new words and the cycle repeats.
>
> I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that if you do decide to change the naming of master/slave because some naughty programmers in the community have been using the terms offensively, you better make damn sure you choose new terms which aren't likely to cause offence in the future and require the whole renaming process to run again. Which is why I'm voting for:
>
> +1 Gru/Minion
Which then is great right up until Universal Pictures sues the Apache foundation to get "Gru" changed. Plus "master/slave" is immediately obvious to anyone working in software. I had to search the web to even figure out what "Gru" was, and then it was not even the first result... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Intelligence_Directorate_%28Russia%29 )
>
> There could also be another option: These terms are all being used to describe a master/slave relationship, the mesos master is in charge, it assigns work to the slaves and ensures that they carry it out. I'd suggest that whatever you call this pair, the relationship will always be one of domination and servitude. Perhaps what is really needed here is to get rid of the concept of a master altogether and re-architect mesos so all nodes in the cluster are equal and reach a consensus together about work distribution and so on?
I propose all processes, regardless of function, should be "mesos-comrade" to ensure none of them feel slighted :)
>
>
> From: Nikolay Borodachev [nborod@adobe.com]
> Sent: 06 June 2015 04:34
> To: user@mesos.apache.org
> Subject: RE: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>
> +1 master/slave – no need to change
>
> From: Sam Salisbury [mailto:samsalisbury@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8:31 AM
> To: user@mesos.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>
> Master/Minion +1
>
> On 5 June 2015 at 15:14, CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> "+1 master/slave, no change needed." is the same as
> "master/slave" I.E. keep the nomenclature as it currently is
>
> This means keep the name 'master' and keep the name 'slave'.
>
>
> Are you applying fuzzy math or kalman filters to your summations below?
>
> It looks to me, tallying things up, Master is kept as it is
> and 'Slave' is kept as it is. There did not seem to be any consensus
> on the new names if the pair names are updated. Or you can vote separately on each name? On an real ballot, you enter the choices,
> vote according to your needs, tally the results and publish them.
> Applying a 'fuzzy filter' to what has occurred in this debate so far
> is ridiculous.
>
> Why not repost the question like this or something on a more fair
> voting preference:
>
> ---------------->
> Please vote for your favourite Name-pair in Mesos, for what is currently
> "Master-Slave". Note Master-Slave is the "no change" vote option.
>
> [] Master-Slave
> [] Mesos-Slave
> [] Mesos-Minion
> [] Master-Minion
> [] Master-Follower
> [] Mesos-Follower
> [] Master-worker
> [] Mesos-worker
> [] etc etc
>
> <-----------------
>
>
> Tally the result and go from there.
> James
>
>
>
>
> On 06/05/2015 04:27 AM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
> Wow, what a response! Allow me to attempt to summarize the sentiment so far.
>
> Let's start with the implicit question,
> _0. Should we rename Mesos Slave?_
> +1 (Explicit approval) 12, including 7 from JIRA
> +0.5 (Implicit approval, suggested alternate name) 18
> -0.5 (Some disapproval, wouldn't block it) 5, including 1 from JIRA
> -1 (Strong disapproval) 16
>
> _1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?_
> Worker: +10, -2
> Agent: +6
> Follower (+Leader): +4, -1
> Minion: +2, -1
> Drone (+Director/Queen): +2
> Resource-Agent/Provider: +2
>
> _2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?_
> Pretty much everybody says that it should be the same as the node.
>
> _3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?_
> Most say No, except when slave's new name has a preferred pairing (e.g.
> Follower/Leader)
>
> _4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?_
> To calm any fears, we would have to go through a full deprecation cycle,
> introducing the new name in one release, while maintaining
> symlinks/aliases/duplicate-endpoints for the old name. In a subsequent
> release, we can remove the old name/endpoints. As we introduce the new
> Mesos 1.0 HTTP API, we will already be introducing breaking API changes,
> so this would be an ideal time to do a rename.
>
> Whether or not we decide to officially change the name in the code/APIs,
> some organizations are already using alternative terminologies in their
> presentations/scripts. We could at least try to agree upon a recommended
> alternative name for these purposes.
>
> _5. How do we vote on this?_
> First, FYI: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> It seems there are two potentially separate items to vote on:
>
> Prop-A: Rename Mesos-Slave in the code/APIs
> Qualifies as a "code modification", so a negative (binding) vote
> constitutes a veto. Note that there are no -1s from the Mesos PMC yet.
> After this week of discussion where the community is invited to share
> their thoughts/opinions, we will call for an official VOTE from the PMC
> members. The proposal will pass if there are at least three positive
> votes and no negative ones.
>
> Prop-B: Recommended Alternative Name for "Slave"
> This can follow the common format of majority rule. We can gather
> recommendations during this one week discussion period, and then vote on
> the top 2-3 finalists.
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Emilien Kenler <ekenler@wizcorp.jp
> <ma...@wizcorp.jp>> wrote:
>
> +1 for keeping master/slave.
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal)
> <panyungao@huawei.com <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>
> +1 master/slave. ____
>
> __ __
>
> These are only terminologies in software architecture. They
> have different definitions from those of social or political
> view. ____
>
> __ __
>
> *发件人:*zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>]
> *发送时间:*2015年6月5日10:40
> *收件人:*user@mesos.apache.org <ma...@mesos.apache.org>
> *主题:*Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave____
>
> __ __
>
> +1 master/slave, no change needed.____
>
> __ __
>
> 2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <ankur@malloc64.com
> <ma...@malloc64.com>>:____
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> +1 master/slave
>
> James made some very good points and there is no technical
> reason for
> wasting time on this.
>
> On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
> > +1 master/slave, no change needed.
> >
> > I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is a
> > well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined). This
> > is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as far
> > as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
> > nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste of
> > time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
> > adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early stages
> > of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
> > whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
> > case ;)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <erenguven0@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:erenguven0@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > +1 master/slave, no change needed
> >
> > Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
> > agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade
> > pains.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xiaods@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:xiaods@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
> > circumstance.
> >
> > 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <james.defelice@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:james.defelice@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>:
> >
> > -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
> >
> > +1 master/slave; no change needed
> >
> > There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at
> > this point. If people want to change the names in their client
> > presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning
> > that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
> > elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technical
> > jargon and have no social implications within such context.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <toenshoff@me.com <ma...@me.com>
> > <mailto:toenshoff@me.com <ma...@me.com>>> wrote:
> >
> >> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process] 3.
> >> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
> >> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
> >> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official"
> >> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
> >> step.
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- James DeFelice585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> <tel:585.241.9488
> <tel:585.241.9488>> (voice)
> >650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> <tel:650.649.6071
> <tel:650.649.6071>> (fax)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
> > <http://gmail.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
> tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
> sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
> afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
> ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
> cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
> =niNh
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----____
>
> __ __
>
>
>
>
> --
> <http://www.wizcorp.jp/> Emilien Kenler
> Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS
> + 81 (0)3-4550-1448|Website <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook
> <http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp>
>
Re: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Alex Rukletsov <al...@mesosphere.com>.
While I'm apathetic to changing the name, I think we should do more than
just voting on an alternate name in case we decide to proceed and replace
the master/slave terminology. Such change is very expensive and it makes
sense to do it once than to rush and pick up an ambiguous term. If we make
this step, we can use it as an opportunity to choose a *better* name for
key Mesos components.
My suggestion is to add pros and cons to every name put in for voting.
Let's back up each proposal with meaningful explanation why this proposal
should be preferred over others. I'll give an example (I will stick to the
current terminology for clarity):
* -1 for 'worker' as it implies the slave process does the actual work,
which is not true and misleading.
* -1 for 'leader/follower' as mesos slaves do not really *follow* the mesos
master; can be confused with leading/shadowing master(s).
* +1 for disambiguating between mesos slave process and mesos slave node:
fwiw, multiple slave processes can be running on the same node.
Some time ago we had an offline discussion about whether master and slave
should actually be different entities. Having a single entity, say,
mesos-agent, that can act either as slave or as master can be beneficial.
Though this is outside of the scope of the current thread, I would like to
keep it in mind and be as general as possible while choosing the name.
Hence, my favourites so far are:
1. Mesos Node [can be disambiguated as Mesos Master Node or Mesos Agent
Node]
2. Mesos Agent
3. No [Mesos Master can mean a particular mode in which a Mesos Agent
currently operates]
4. Start using it in presentations, JIRAs, mailing lists, then proceed to
docs update; change code via deprecation process once new terminology is
settled.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Aaron Carey <ac...@ilm.com> wrote:
> I've been following this thread with interest, it draws a lot of
> parallels with similar problems my wife faces as a teacher (and I imagine
> this happens in other government/public sector organisations, earlier in
> this thread James pointed me to an interested Wikipedia article which
> suggested this also happens occasionally in software: eg County of Los
> Angeles in 2003). Every few years teachers are told to change the words
> used to describe various things related to kids with minority backgrounds,
> from underprivileged families or with disabilities and so on, usually to
> stop other children from using them as derogatory terms or insults. It
> works for a while and then the pupils catch on and start using the new
> words and the cycle repeats.
>
> I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that if you do decide to
> change the naming of master/slave because some naughty programmers in the
> community have been using the terms offensively, you better make damn sure
> you choose new terms which aren't likely to cause offence in the future and
> require the whole renaming process to run again. Which is why I'm voting
> for:
>
> +1 Gru/Minion
>
> There could also be another option: These terms are all being used to
> describe a master/slave relationship, the mesos master is in charge, it
> assigns work to the slaves and ensures that they carry it out. I'd suggest
> that whatever you call this pair, the relationship will always be one of
> domination and servitude. Perhaps what is really needed here is to get rid
> of the concept of a master altogether and re-architect mesos so all nodes
> in the cluster are equal and reach a consensus together about work
> distribution and so on?
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Nikolay Borodachev [nborod@adobe.com]
> *Sent:* 06 June 2015 04:34
> *To:* user@mesos.apache.org
> *Subject:* RE: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>
> +1 master/slave – no need to change
>
>
>
> *From:* Sam Salisbury [mailto:samsalisbury@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 05, 2015 8:31 AM
> *To:* user@mesos.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>
>
>
> Master/Minion +1
>
>
>
> On 5 June 2015 at 15:14, CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> "+1 master/slave, no change needed." is the same as
> "master/slave" I.E. keep the nomenclature as it currently is
>
> This means keep the name 'master' and keep the name 'slave'.
>
>
> Are you applying fuzzy math or kalman filters to your summations below?
>
> It looks to me, tallying things up, Master is kept as it is
> and 'Slave' is kept as it is. There did not seem to be any consensus
> on the new names if the pair names are updated. Or you can vote separately
> on each name? On an real ballot, you enter the choices,
> vote according to your needs, tally the results and publish them.
> Applying a 'fuzzy filter' to what has occurred in this debate so far
> is ridiculous.
>
> Why not repost the question like this or something on a more fair
> voting preference:
>
> ---------------->
> Please vote for your favourite Name-pair in Mesos, for what is currently
> "Master-Slave". Note Master-Slave is the "no change" vote option.
>
> [] Master-Slave
> [] Mesos-Slave
> [] Mesos-Minion
> [] Master-Minion
> [] Master-Follower
> [] Mesos-Follower
> [] Master-worker
> [] Mesos-worker
> [] etc etc
>
> <-----------------
>
>
> Tally the result and go from there.
> James
>
>
>
>
> On 06/05/2015 04:27 AM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
>
> Wow, what a response! Allow me to attempt to summarize the sentiment so
> far.
>
> Let's start with the implicit question,
> _0. Should we rename Mesos Slave?_
> +1 (Explicit approval) 12, including 7 from JIRA
> +0.5 (Implicit approval, suggested alternate name) 18
> -0.5 (Some disapproval, wouldn't block it) 5, including 1 from JIRA
> -1 (Strong disapproval) 16
>
> _1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?_
> Worker: +10, -2
> Agent: +6
> Follower (+Leader): +4, -1
> Minion: +2, -1
> Drone (+Director/Queen): +2
> Resource-Agent/Provider: +2
>
> _2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?_
> Pretty much everybody says that it should be the same as the node.
>
> _3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?_
> Most say No, except when slave's new name has a preferred pairing (e.g.
> Follower/Leader)
>
> _4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?_
> To calm any fears, we would have to go through a full deprecation cycle,
> introducing the new name in one release, while maintaining
> symlinks/aliases/duplicate-endpoints for the old name. In a subsequent
> release, we can remove the old name/endpoints. As we introduce the new
> Mesos 1.0 HTTP API, we will already be introducing breaking API changes,
> so this would be an ideal time to do a rename.
>
> Whether or not we decide to officially change the name in the code/APIs,
> some organizations are already using alternative terminologies in their
> presentations/scripts. We could at least try to agree upon a recommended
> alternative name for these purposes.
>
> _5. How do we vote on this?_
> First, FYI: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> It seems there are two potentially separate items to vote on:
>
> Prop-A: Rename Mesos-Slave in the code/APIs
> Qualifies as a "code modification", so a negative (binding) vote
> constitutes a veto. Note that there are no -1s from the Mesos PMC yet.
> After this week of discussion where the community is invited to share
> their thoughts/opinions, we will call for an official VOTE from the PMC
> members. The proposal will pass if there are at least three positive
> votes and no negative ones.
>
> Prop-B: Recommended Alternative Name for "Slave"
> This can follow the common format of majority rule. We can gather
> recommendations during this one week discussion period, and then vote on
> the top 2-3 finalists.
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Emilien Kenler <ekenler@wizcorp.jp
> <ma...@wizcorp.jp>> wrote:
>
> +1 for keeping master/slave.
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal)
> <panyungao@huawei.com <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>
> +1 master/slave. ____
>
> __ __
>
> These are only terminologies in software architecture. They
> have different definitions from those of social or political
> view. ____
>
> __ __
>
> *发件人:*zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>]
> *发送时间:*2015年6月5日10:40
> *收件人:*user@mesos.apache.org <ma...@mesos.apache.org>
> *主题:*Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave____
>
> __ __
>
> +1 master/slave, no change needed.____
>
> __ __
>
> 2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <ankur@malloc64.com
> <ma...@malloc64.com>>:____
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> +1 master/slave
>
> James made some very good points and there is no technical
> reason for
> wasting time on this.
>
> On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
> > +1 master/slave, no change needed.
> >
> > I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is a
> > well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined).
> This
> > is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as
> far
> > as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
> > nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste
> of
> > time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
> > adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early stages
> > of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
> > whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
> > case ;)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <erenguven0@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:erenguven0@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 master/slave, no change needed
> >
> > Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
> > agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade
> > pains.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xiaods@gmail.com <mailto:
> xiaods@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:xiaods@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
> > circumstance.
> >
> > 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <
> james.defelice@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:james.defelice@gmail.com <mailto:
> james.defelice@gmail.com>>>:
> >
> > -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
> >
> > +1 master/slave; no change needed
> >
> > There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change
> at
> > this point. If people want to change the names in their client
> > presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning
> > that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
> > elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technical
> > jargon and have no social implications within such context.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <toenshoff@me.com
> <ma...@me.com>
> > <mailto:toenshoff@me.com <ma...@me.com>>> wrote:
> >
> >> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process] 3.
> >> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
> >> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
> >> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official"
> >> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
> >> step.
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- James DeFelice585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> <tel:
> 585.241.9488
> <tel:585.241.9488>> (voice)
> >650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> <tel:650.649.6071
> <tel:650.649.6071>> (fax)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com <
> http://gmail.com>
> > <http://gmail.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
> tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
> sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
> afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
> ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
> cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
> =niNh
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----____
>
> __ __
>
>
>
>
> --
> <http://www.wizcorp.jp/> Emilien Kenler
> Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS
> + 81 (0)3-4550-1448|Website <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook
> <http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp>
>
>
>
>
>
RE: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Aaron Carey <ac...@ilm.com>.
I've been following this thread with interest, it draws a lot of parallels with similar problems my wife faces as a teacher (and I imagine this happens in other government/public sector organisations, earlier in this thread James pointed me to an interested Wikipedia article which suggested this also happens occasionally in software: eg County of Los Angeles in 2003). Every few years teachers are told to change the words used to describe various things related to kids with minority backgrounds, from underprivileged families or with disabilities and so on, usually to stop other children from using them as derogatory terms or insults. It works for a while and then the pupils catch on and start using the new words and the cycle repeats.
I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that if you do decide to change the naming of master/slave because some naughty programmers in the community have been using the terms offensively, you better make damn sure you choose new terms which aren't likely to cause offence in the future and require the whole renaming process to run again. Which is why I'm voting for:
+1 Gru/Minion
There could also be another option: These terms are all being used to describe a master/slave relationship, the mesos master is in charge, it assigns work to the slaves and ensures that they carry it out. I'd suggest that whatever you call this pair, the relationship will always be one of domination and servitude. Perhaps what is really needed here is to get rid of the concept of a master altogether and re-architect mesos so all nodes in the cluster are equal and reach a consensus together about work distribution and so on?
________________________________
From: Nikolay Borodachev [nborod@adobe.com]
Sent: 06 June 2015 04:34
To: user@mesos.apache.org
Subject: RE: ��: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
+1 master/slave �C no need to change
From: Sam Salisbury [mailto:samsalisbury@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8:31 AM
To: user@mesos.apache.org
Subject: Re: ��: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Master/Minion +1
On 5 June 2015 at 15:14, CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com>> wrote:
"+1 master/slave, no change needed." is the same as
"master/slave" I.E. keep the nomenclature as it currently is
This means keep the name 'master' and keep the name 'slave'.
Are you applying fuzzy math or kalman filters to your summations below?
It looks to me, tallying things up, Master is kept as it is
and 'Slave' is kept as it is. There did not seem to be any consensus
on the new names if the pair names are updated. Or you can vote separately on each name? On an real ballot, you enter the choices,
vote according to your needs, tally the results and publish them.
Applying a 'fuzzy filter' to what has occurred in this debate so far
is ridiculous.
Why not repost the question like this or something on a more fair
voting preference:
---------------->
Please vote for your favourite Name-pair in Mesos, for what is currently
"Master-Slave". Note Master-Slave is the "no change" vote option.
[] Master-Slave
[] Mesos-Slave
[] Mesos-Minion
[] Master-Minion
[] Master-Follower
[] Mesos-Follower
[] Master-worker
[] Mesos-worker
[] etc etc
<-----------------
Tally the result and go from there.
James
On 06/05/2015 04:27 AM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
Wow, what a response! Allow me to attempt to summarize the sentiment so far.
Let's start with the implicit question,
_0. Should we rename Mesos Slave?_
+1 (Explicit approval) 12, including 7 from JIRA
+0.5 (Implicit approval, suggested alternate name) 18
-0.5 (Some disapproval, wouldn't block it) 5, including 1 from JIRA
-1 (Strong disapproval) 16
_1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?_
Worker: +10, -2
Agent: +6
Follower (+Leader): +4, -1
Minion: +2, -1
Drone (+Director/Queen): +2
Resource-Agent/Provider: +2
_2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?_
Pretty much everybody says that it should be the same as the node.
_3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?_
Most say No, except when slave's new name has a preferred pairing (e.g.
Follower/Leader)
_4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?_
To calm any fears, we would have to go through a full deprecation cycle,
introducing the new name in one release, while maintaining
symlinks/aliases/duplicate-endpoints for the old name. In a subsequent
release, we can remove the old name/endpoints. As we introduce the new
Mesos 1.0 HTTP API, we will already be introducing breaking API changes,
so this would be an ideal time to do a rename.
Whether or not we decide to officially change the name in the code/APIs,
some organizations are already using alternative terminologies in their
presentations/scripts. We could at least try to agree upon a recommended
alternative name for these purposes.
_5. How do we vote on this?_
First, FYI: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
It seems there are two potentially separate items to vote on:
Prop-A: Rename Mesos-Slave in the code/APIs
Qualifies as a "code modification", so a negative (binding) vote
constitutes a veto. Note that there are no -1s from the Mesos PMC yet.
After this week of discussion where the community is invited to share
their thoughts/opinions, we will call for an official VOTE from the PMC
members. The proposal will pass if there are at least three positive
votes and no negative ones.
Prop-B: Recommended Alternative Name for "Slave"
This can follow the common format of majority rule. We can gather
recommendations during this one week discussion period, and then vote on
the top 2-3 finalists.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Emilien Kenler <ek...@wizcorp.jp>
<ma...@wizcorp.jp>>> wrote:
+1 for keeping master/slave.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal)
<pa...@huawei.com> <ma...@huawei.com>>> wrote:
+1 master/slave. ____
__ __
These are only terminologies in software architecture. They
have different definitions from those of social or political
view. ____
__ __
*������:*zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
<ma...@gmail.com>>]
*����ʱ��:*2015��6��5��10:40
*�ռ���:*user@mesos.apache.org<ma...@mesos.apache.org> <ma...@mesos.apache.org>>
*����:*Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave____
__ __
+1 master/slave, no change needed.____
__ __
2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <an...@malloc64.com>
<ma...@malloc64.com>>>:____
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
+1 master/slave
James made some very good points and there is no technical
reason for
wasting time on this.
On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
> +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>
> I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is a
> well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined). This
> is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as far
> as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
> nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste of
> time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
> adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early stages
> of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
> whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
> case ;)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jim
>
>
> On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren G��ven <er...@gmail.com> <ma...@gmail.com>>
> <ma...@gmail.com> <ma...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
>
> +1 master/slave, no change needed
>
> Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
> agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade
> pains.
>
> Cheers
>
> On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xi...@gmail.com> <ma...@gmail.com>>
> <ma...@gmail.com> <ma...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
>
> +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
> circumstance.
>
> 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <ja...@gmail.com> <ma...@gmail.com>>
> <ma...@gmail.com> <ma...@gmail.com>>>>:
>
> -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
>
> +1 master/slave; no change needed
>
> There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at
> this point. If people want to change the names in their client
> presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning
> that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
> elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technical
> jargon and have no social implications within such context.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <to...@me.com> <ma...@me.com>>
> <ma...@me.com> <ma...@me.com>>>> wrote:
>
>> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process] 3.
>> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
>> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
>> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official"
>> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
>> step.
>
> +1
>
>
>
>
> -- James DeFelice585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488<tel:585.241.9488>> <tel:585.241.9488<tel:585.241.9488>
<tel:585.241.9488<tel:585.241.9488>>> (voice)
>650.649.6071<tel:650.649.6071> <tel:650.649.6071<tel:650.649.6071>> <tel:650.649.6071<tel:650.649.6071>
<tel:650.649.6071<tel:650.649.6071>>> (fax)
>
>
>
>
> -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com<http://gmail.com> <http://gmail.com>
> <http://gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
=niNh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----____
__ __
--
<http://www.wizcorp.jp/> Emilien Kenler
Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS
+ 81 (0)3-4550-1448<tel:%2B%2081%20%280%293-4550-1448>|Website <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter
<https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp>
RE: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Nikolay Borodachev <nb...@adobe.com>.
+1 master/slave – no need to change
From: Sam Salisbury [mailto:samsalisbury@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8:31 AM
To: user@mesos.apache.org
Subject: Re: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Master/Minion +1
On 5 June 2015 at 15:14, CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com>> wrote:
"+1 master/slave, no change needed." is the same as
"master/slave" I.E. keep the nomenclature as it currently is
This means keep the name 'master' and keep the name 'slave'.
Are you applying fuzzy math or kalman filters to your summations below?
It looks to me, tallying things up, Master is kept as it is
and 'Slave' is kept as it is. There did not seem to be any consensus
on the new names if the pair names are updated. Or you can vote separately on each name? On an real ballot, you enter the choices,
vote according to your needs, tally the results and publish them.
Applying a 'fuzzy filter' to what has occurred in this debate so far
is ridiculous.
Why not repost the question like this or something on a more fair
voting preference:
---------------->
Please vote for your favourite Name-pair in Mesos, for what is currently
"Master-Slave". Note Master-Slave is the "no change" vote option.
[] Master-Slave
[] Mesos-Slave
[] Mesos-Minion
[] Master-Minion
[] Master-Follower
[] Mesos-Follower
[] Master-worker
[] Mesos-worker
[] etc etc
<-----------------
Tally the result and go from there.
James
On 06/05/2015 04:27 AM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
Wow, what a response! Allow me to attempt to summarize the sentiment so far.
Let's start with the implicit question,
_0. Should we rename Mesos Slave?_
+1 (Explicit approval) 12, including 7 from JIRA
+0.5 (Implicit approval, suggested alternate name) 18
-0.5 (Some disapproval, wouldn't block it) 5, including 1 from JIRA
-1 (Strong disapproval) 16
_1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?_
Worker: +10, -2
Agent: +6
Follower (+Leader): +4, -1
Minion: +2, -1
Drone (+Director/Queen): +2
Resource-Agent/Provider: +2
_2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?_
Pretty much everybody says that it should be the same as the node.
_3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?_
Most say No, except when slave's new name has a preferred pairing (e.g.
Follower/Leader)
_4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?_
To calm any fears, we would have to go through a full deprecation cycle,
introducing the new name in one release, while maintaining
symlinks/aliases/duplicate-endpoints for the old name. In a subsequent
release, we can remove the old name/endpoints. As we introduce the new
Mesos 1.0 HTTP API, we will already be introducing breaking API changes,
so this would be an ideal time to do a rename.
Whether or not we decide to officially change the name in the code/APIs,
some organizations are already using alternative terminologies in their
presentations/scripts. We could at least try to agree upon a recommended
alternative name for these purposes.
_5. How do we vote on this?_
First, FYI: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
It seems there are two potentially separate items to vote on:
Prop-A: Rename Mesos-Slave in the code/APIs
Qualifies as a "code modification", so a negative (binding) vote
constitutes a veto. Note that there are no -1s from the Mesos PMC yet.
After this week of discussion where the community is invited to share
their thoughts/opinions, we will call for an official VOTE from the PMC
members. The proposal will pass if there are at least three positive
votes and no negative ones.
Prop-B: Recommended Alternative Name for "Slave"
This can follow the common format of majority rule. We can gather
recommendations during this one week discussion period, and then vote on
the top 2-3 finalists.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Emilien Kenler <ek...@wizcorp.jp>
<ma...@wizcorp.jp>>> wrote:
+1 for keeping master/slave.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal)
<pa...@huawei.com> <ma...@huawei.com>>> wrote:
+1 master/slave. ____
__ __
These are only terminologies in software architecture. They
have different definitions from those of social or political
view. ____
__ __
*发件人:*zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
<ma...@gmail.com>>]
*发送时间:*2015年6月5日10:40
*收件人:*user@mesos.apache.org<ma...@mesos.apache.org> <ma...@mesos.apache.org>>
*主题:*Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave____
__ __
+1 master/slave, no change needed.____
__ __
2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <an...@malloc64.com>
<ma...@malloc64.com>>>:____
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
+1 master/slave
James made some very good points and there is no technical
reason for
wasting time on this.
On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
> +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>
> I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is a
> well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined). This
> is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as far
> as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
> nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste of
> time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
> adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early stages
> of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
> whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
> case ;)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jim
>
>
> On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <er...@gmail.com> <ma...@gmail.com>>
> <ma...@gmail.com> <ma...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
>
> +1 master/slave, no change needed
>
> Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
> agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade
> pains.
>
> Cheers
>
> On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xi...@gmail.com> <ma...@gmail.com>>
> <ma...@gmail.com> <ma...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
>
> +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
> circumstance.
>
> 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <ja...@gmail.com> <ma...@gmail.com>>
> <ma...@gmail.com> <ma...@gmail.com>>>>:
>
> -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
>
> +1 master/slave; no change needed
>
> There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at
> this point. If people want to change the names in their client
> presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning
> that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
> elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technical
> jargon and have no social implications within such context.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <to...@me.com> <ma...@me.com>>
> <ma...@me.com> <ma...@me.com>>>> wrote:
>
>> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process] 3.
>> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
>> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
>> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official"
>> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
>> step.
>
> +1
>
>
>
>
> -- James DeFelice585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488<tel:585.241.9488>> <tel:585.241.9488<tel:585.241.9488>
<tel:585.241.9488<tel:585.241.9488>>> (voice)
>650.649.6071<tel:650.649.6071> <tel:650.649.6071<tel:650.649.6071>> <tel:650.649.6071<tel:650.649.6071>
<tel:650.649.6071<tel:650.649.6071>>> (fax)
>
>
>
>
> -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com<http://gmail.com> <http://gmail.com>
> <http://gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
=niNh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----____
__ __
--
<http://www.wizcorp.jp/> Emilien Kenler
Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS
+ 81 (0)3-4550-1448<tel:%2B%2081%20%280%293-4550-1448>|Website <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter
<https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp>
Re: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Sam Salisbury <sa...@gmail.com>.
Master/Minion +1
On 5 June 2015 at 15:14, CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> "+1 master/slave, no change needed." is the same as
> "master/slave" I.E. keep the nomenclature as it currently is
>
> This means keep the name 'master' and keep the name 'slave'.
>
>
> Are you applying fuzzy math or kalman filters to your summations below?
>
> It looks to me, tallying things up, Master is kept as it is
> and 'Slave' is kept as it is. There did not seem to be any consensus
> on the new names if the pair names are updated. Or you can vote separately
> on each name? On an real ballot, you enter the choices,
> vote according to your needs, tally the results and publish them.
> Applying a 'fuzzy filter' to what has occurred in this debate so far
> is ridiculous.
>
> Why not repost the question like this or something on a more fair
> voting preference:
>
> ---------------->
> Please vote for your favourite Name-pair in Mesos, for what is currently
> "Master-Slave". Note Master-Slave is the "no change" vote option.
>
> [] Master-Slave
> [] Mesos-Slave
> [] Mesos-Minion
> [] Master-Minion
> [] Master-Follower
> [] Mesos-Follower
> [] Master-worker
> [] Mesos-worker
> [] etc etc
>
> <-----------------
>
>
> Tally the result and go from there.
> James
>
>
>
>
> On 06/05/2015 04:27 AM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
>
>> Wow, what a response! Allow me to attempt to summarize the sentiment so
>> far.
>>
>> Let's start with the implicit question,
>> _0. Should we rename Mesos Slave?_
>> +1 (Explicit approval) 12, including 7 from JIRA
>> +0.5 (Implicit approval, suggested alternate name) 18
>> -0.5 (Some disapproval, wouldn't block it) 5, including 1 from JIRA
>> -1 (Strong disapproval) 16
>>
>> _1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?_
>> Worker: +10, -2
>> Agent: +6
>> Follower (+Leader): +4, -1
>> Minion: +2, -1
>> Drone (+Director/Queen): +2
>> Resource-Agent/Provider: +2
>>
>> _2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?_
>> Pretty much everybody says that it should be the same as the node.
>>
>> _3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?_
>> Most say No, except when slave's new name has a preferred pairing (e.g.
>> Follower/Leader)
>>
>> _4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?_
>> To calm any fears, we would have to go through a full deprecation cycle,
>> introducing the new name in one release, while maintaining
>> symlinks/aliases/duplicate-endpoints for the old name. In a subsequent
>> release, we can remove the old name/endpoints. As we introduce the new
>> Mesos 1.0 HTTP API, we will already be introducing breaking API changes,
>> so this would be an ideal time to do a rename.
>>
>> Whether or not we decide to officially change the name in the code/APIs,
>> some organizations are already using alternative terminologies in their
>> presentations/scripts. We could at least try to agree upon a recommended
>> alternative name for these purposes.
>>
>> _5. How do we vote on this?_
>> First, FYI: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>> It seems there are two potentially separate items to vote on:
>>
>> Prop-A: Rename Mesos-Slave in the code/APIs
>> Qualifies as a "code modification", so a negative (binding) vote
>> constitutes a veto. Note that there are no -1s from the Mesos PMC yet.
>> After this week of discussion where the community is invited to share
>> their thoughts/opinions, we will call for an official VOTE from the PMC
>> members. The proposal will pass if there are at least three positive
>> votes and no negative ones.
>>
>> Prop-B: Recommended Alternative Name for "Slave"
>> This can follow the common format of majority rule. We can gather
>> recommendations during this one week discussion period, and then vote on
>> the top 2-3 finalists.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Emilien Kenler <ekenler@wizcorp.jp
>> <ma...@wizcorp.jp>> wrote:
>>
>> +1 for keeping master/slave.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal)
>> <panyungao@huawei.com <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>
>> +1 master/slave. ____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> These are only terminologies in software architecture. They
>> have different definitions from those of social or political
>> view. ____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> *发件人:*zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>]
>> *发送时间:*2015年6月5日10:40
>> *收件人:*user@mesos.apache.org <ma...@mesos.apache.org>
>> *主题:*Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> +1 master/slave, no change needed.____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> 2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <ankur@malloc64.com
>> <ma...@malloc64.com>>:____
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> +1 master/slave
>>
>> James made some very good points and there is no technical
>> reason for
>> wasting time on this.
>>
>> On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
>> > +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>> >
>> > I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is
>> a
>> > well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined).
>> This
>> > is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as
>> far
>> > as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
>> > nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste
>> of
>> > time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
>> > adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early
>> stages
>> > of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
>> > whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
>> > case ;)
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Jim
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <erenguven0@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>
>> > <mailto:erenguven0@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 master/slave, no change needed
>> >
>> > Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
>> > agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause
>> upgrade
>> > pains.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xiaods@gmail.com <mailto:
>> xiaods@gmail.com>
>> > <mailto:xiaods@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
>> > circumstance.
>> >
>> > 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <
>> james.defelice@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>> > <mailto:james.defelice@gmail.com <mailto:
>> james.defelice@gmail.com>>>:
>> >
>> > -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
>> >
>> > +1 master/slave; no change needed
>> >
>> > There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change
>> at
>> > this point. If people want to change the names in their client
>> > presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning
>> > that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
>> > elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technical
>> > jargon and have no social implications within such context.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <
>> toenshoff@me.com <ma...@me.com>
>> > <mailto:toenshoff@me.com <ma...@me.com>>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process]
>> 3.
>> >> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
>> >> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
>> >> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the
>> "official"
>> >> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
>> >> step.
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -- James DeFelice585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> <tel:
>> 585.241.9488
>> <tel:585.241.9488>> (voice)
>> >650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> <tel:650.649.6071
>> <tel:650.649.6071>> (fax)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com <
>> http://gmail.com>
>> > <http://gmail.com>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
>> tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
>> sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
>> afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
>> ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
>> cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
>> =niNh
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> <http://www.wizcorp.jp/> Emilien Kenler
>> Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS
>> + 81 (0)3-4550-1448|Website <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook
>> <http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com>.
"+1 master/slave, no change needed." is the same as
"master/slave" I.E. keep the nomenclature as it currently is
This means keep the name 'master' and keep the name 'slave'.
Are you applying fuzzy math or kalman filters to your summations below?
It looks to me, tallying things up, Master is kept as it is
and 'Slave' is kept as it is. There did not seem to be any consensus
on the new names if the pair names are updated. Or you can vote
separately on each name? On an real ballot, you enter the choices,
vote according to your needs, tally the results and publish them.
Applying a 'fuzzy filter' to what has occurred in this debate so far
is ridiculous.
Why not repost the question like this or something on a more fair
voting preference:
---------------->
Please vote for your favourite Name-pair in Mesos, for what is currently
"Master-Slave". Note Master-Slave is the "no change" vote option.
[] Master-Slave
[] Mesos-Slave
[] Mesos-Minion
[] Master-Minion
[] Master-Follower
[] Mesos-Follower
[] Master-worker
[] Mesos-worker
[] etc etc
<-----------------
Tally the result and go from there.
James
On 06/05/2015 04:27 AM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
> Wow, what a response! Allow me to attempt to summarize the sentiment so far.
>
> Let's start with the implicit question,
> _0. Should we rename Mesos Slave?_
> +1 (Explicit approval) 12, including 7 from JIRA
> +0.5 (Implicit approval, suggested alternate name) 18
> -0.5 (Some disapproval, wouldn't block it) 5, including 1 from JIRA
> -1 (Strong disapproval) 16
>
> _1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?_
> Worker: +10, -2
> Agent: +6
> Follower (+Leader): +4, -1
> Minion: +2, -1
> Drone (+Director/Queen): +2
> Resource-Agent/Provider: +2
>
> _2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?_
> Pretty much everybody says that it should be the same as the node.
>
> _3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?_
> Most say No, except when slave's new name has a preferred pairing (e.g.
> Follower/Leader)
>
> _4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?_
> To calm any fears, we would have to go through a full deprecation cycle,
> introducing the new name in one release, while maintaining
> symlinks/aliases/duplicate-endpoints for the old name. In a subsequent
> release, we can remove the old name/endpoints. As we introduce the new
> Mesos 1.0 HTTP API, we will already be introducing breaking API changes,
> so this would be an ideal time to do a rename.
>
> Whether or not we decide to officially change the name in the code/APIs,
> some organizations are already using alternative terminologies in their
> presentations/scripts. We could at least try to agree upon a recommended
> alternative name for these purposes.
>
> _5. How do we vote on this?_
> First, FYI: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> It seems there are two potentially separate items to vote on:
>
> Prop-A: Rename Mesos-Slave in the code/APIs
> Qualifies as a "code modification", so a negative (binding) vote
> constitutes a veto. Note that there are no -1s from the Mesos PMC yet.
> After this week of discussion where the community is invited to share
> their thoughts/opinions, we will call for an official VOTE from the PMC
> members. The proposal will pass if there are at least three positive
> votes and no negative ones.
>
> Prop-B: Recommended Alternative Name for "Slave"
> This can follow the common format of majority rule. We can gather
> recommendations during this one week discussion period, and then vote on
> the top 2-3 finalists.
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Emilien Kenler <ekenler@wizcorp.jp
> <ma...@wizcorp.jp>> wrote:
>
> +1 for keeping master/slave.
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal)
> <panyungao@huawei.com <ma...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>
> +1 master/slave. ____
>
> __ __
>
> These are only terminologies in software architecture. They
> have different definitions from those of social or political
> view. ____
>
> __ __
>
> *发件人:*zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>]
> *发送时间:*2015年6月5日10:40
> *收件人:*user@mesos.apache.org <ma...@mesos.apache.org>
> *主题:*Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave____
>
> __ __
>
> +1 master/slave, no change needed.____
>
> __ __
>
> 2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <ankur@malloc64.com
> <ma...@malloc64.com>>:____
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> +1 master/slave
>
> James made some very good points and there is no technical
> reason for
> wasting time on this.
>
> On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
> > +1 master/slave, no change needed.
> >
> > I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is a
> > well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined). This
> > is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as far
> > as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
> > nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste of
> > time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
> > adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early stages
> > of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
> > whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
> > case ;)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <erenguven0@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:erenguven0@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > +1 master/slave, no change needed
> >
> > Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
> > agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade
> > pains.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xiaods@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:xiaods@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
> > circumstance.
> >
> > 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <james.defelice@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:james.defelice@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>:
> >
> > -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
> >
> > +1 master/slave; no change needed
> >
> > There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at
> > this point. If people want to change the names in their client
> > presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning
> > that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
> > elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technical
> > jargon and have no social implications within such context.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <toenshoff@me.com <ma...@me.com>
> > <mailto:toenshoff@me.com <ma...@me.com>>> wrote:
> >
> >> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process] 3.
> >> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
> >> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
> >> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official"
> >> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
> >> step.
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- James DeFelice585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> <tel:585.241.9488
> <tel:585.241.9488>> (voice)
> >650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> <tel:650.649.6071
> <tel:650.649.6071>> (fax)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
> > <http://gmail.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
> tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
> sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
> afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
> ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
> cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
> =niNh
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----____
>
> __ __
>
>
>
>
> --
> <http://www.wizcorp.jp/> Emilien Kenler
> Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS
> + 81 (0)3-4550-1448|Website <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook
> <http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp>
>
>
Re: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io>.
Wow, what a response! Allow me to attempt to summarize the sentiment so far.
Let's start with the implicit question,
*0. Should we rename Mesos Slave?*
+1 (Explicit approval) 12, including 7 from JIRA
+0.5 (Implicit approval, suggested alternate name) 18
-0.5 (Some disapproval, wouldn't block it) 5, including 1 from JIRA
-1 (Strong disapproval) 16
*1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?*
Worker: +10, -2
Agent: +6
Follower (+Leader): +4, -1
Minion: +2, -1
Drone (+Director/Queen): +2
Resource-Agent/Provider: +2
*2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?*
Pretty much everybody says that it should be the same as the node.
*3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?*
Most say No, except when slave's new name has a preferred pairing (e.g.
Follower/Leader)
*4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?*
To calm any fears, we would have to go through a full deprecation cycle,
introducing the new name in one release, while maintaining
symlinks/aliases/duplicate-endpoints for the old name. In a subsequent
release, we can remove the old name/endpoints. As we introduce the new
Mesos 1.0 HTTP API, we will already be introducing breaking API changes, so
this would be an ideal time to do a rename.
Whether or not we decide to officially change the name in the code/APIs,
some organizations are already using alternative terminologies in their
presentations/scripts. We could at least try to agree upon a recommended
alternative name for these purposes.
*5. How do we vote on this?*
First, FYI: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
It seems there are two potentially separate items to vote on:
Prop-A: Rename Mesos-Slave in the code/APIs
Qualifies as a "code modification", so a negative (binding) vote
constitutes a veto. Note that there are no -1s from the Mesos PMC yet.
After this week of discussion where the community is invited to share their
thoughts/opinions, we will call for an official VOTE from the PMC members.
The proposal will pass if there are at least three positive votes and no
negative ones.
Prop-B: Recommended Alternative Name for "Slave"
This can follow the common format of majority rule. We can gather
recommendations during this one week discussion period, and then vote on
the top 2-3 finalists.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Emilien Kenler <ek...@wizcorp.jp> wrote:
> +1 for keeping master/slave.
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal) <panyungao@huawei.com
> > wrote:
>
>> +1 master/slave.
>>
>>
>>
>> These are only terminologies in software architecture. They have
>> different definitions from those of social or political view.
>>
>>
>>
>> *发件人:* zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com]
>> *发送时间:* 2015年6月5日 10:40
>> *收件人:* user@mesos.apache.org
>> *主题:* Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>>
>>
>>
>> +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <an...@malloc64.com>:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> +1 master/slave
>>
>> James made some very good points and there is no technical reason for
>> wasting time on this.
>>
>> On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
>> > +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>> >
>> > I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is a
>> > well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined). This
>> > is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as far
>> > as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
>> > nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste of
>> > time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
>> > adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early stages
>> > of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
>> > whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
>> > case ;)
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Jim
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <erenguven0@gmail.com
>> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 master/slave, no change needed
>> >
>> > Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
>> > agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade
>> > pains.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xiaods@gmail.com
>> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
>> > circumstance.
>> >
>> > 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <james.defelice@gmail.com
>> > <ma...@gmail.com>>:
>> >
>> > -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
>> >
>> > +1 master/slave; no change needed
>> >
>> > There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at
>> > this point. If people want to change the names in their client
>> > presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning
>> > that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
>> > elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technical
>> > jargon and have no social implications within such context.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <toenshoff@me.com
>> > <ma...@me.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process] 3.
>> >> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
>> >> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
>> >> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official"
>> >> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
>> >> step.
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -- James DeFelice 585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> (voice)
>> > 650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> (fax)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com
>> > <http://gmail.com>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
>> tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
>> sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
>> afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
>> ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
>> cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
>> =niNh
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>Emilien Kenler
> Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>
> ------------------------------
> TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS+ 81 (0)3-4550-1448|Website
> <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter <https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook
> <http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp>
>
Re: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io>.
Wow, what a response! Allow me to attempt to summarize the sentiment so far.
Let's start with the implicit question,
*0. Should we rename Mesos Slave?*
+1 (Explicit approval) 12, including 7 from JIRA
+0.5 (Implicit approval, suggested alternate name) 18
-0.5 (Some disapproval, wouldn't block it) 5, including 1 from JIRA
-1 (Strong disapproval) 16
*1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?*
Worker: +10, -2
Agent: +6
Follower (+Leader): +4, -1
Minion: +2, -1
Drone (+Director/Queen): +2
Resource-Agent/Provider: +2
*2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?*
Pretty much everybody says that it should be the same as the node.
*3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?*
Most say No, except when slave's new name has a preferred pairing (e.g.
Follower/Leader)
*4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?*
To calm any fears, we would have to go through a full deprecation cycle,
introducing the new name in one release, while maintaining
symlinks/aliases/duplicate-endpoints for the old name. In a subsequent
release, we can remove the old name/endpoints. As we introduce the new
Mesos 1.0 HTTP API, we will already be introducing breaking API changes, so
this would be an ideal time to do a rename.
Whether or not we decide to officially change the name in the code/APIs,
some organizations are already using alternative terminologies in their
presentations/scripts. We could at least try to agree upon a recommended
alternative name for these purposes.
*5. How do we vote on this?*
First, FYI: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
It seems there are two potentially separate items to vote on:
Prop-A: Rename Mesos-Slave in the code/APIs
Qualifies as a "code modification", so a negative (binding) vote
constitutes a veto. Note that there are no -1s from the Mesos PMC yet.
After this week of discussion where the community is invited to share their
thoughts/opinions, we will call for an official VOTE from the PMC members.
The proposal will pass if there are at least three positive votes and no
negative ones.
Prop-B: Recommended Alternative Name for "Slave"
This can follow the common format of majority rule. We can gather
recommendations during this one week discussion period, and then vote on
the top 2-3 finalists.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Emilien Kenler <ek...@wizcorp.jp> wrote:
> +1 for keeping master/slave.
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal) <panyungao@huawei.com
> > wrote:
>
>> +1 master/slave.
>>
>>
>>
>> These are only terminologies in software architecture. They have
>> different definitions from those of social or political view.
>>
>>
>>
>> *发件人:* zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com]
>> *发送时间:* 2015年6月5日 10:40
>> *收件人:* user@mesos.apache.org
>> *主题:* Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>>
>>
>>
>> +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <an...@malloc64.com>:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> +1 master/slave
>>
>> James made some very good points and there is no technical reason for
>> wasting time on this.
>>
>> On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
>> > +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>> >
>> > I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is a
>> > well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined). This
>> > is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as far
>> > as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
>> > nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste of
>> > time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
>> > adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early stages
>> > of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
>> > whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
>> > case ;)
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Jim
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <erenguven0@gmail.com
>> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 master/slave, no change needed
>> >
>> > Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
>> > agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade
>> > pains.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xiaods@gmail.com
>> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
>> > circumstance.
>> >
>> > 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <james.defelice@gmail.com
>> > <ma...@gmail.com>>:
>> >
>> > -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
>> >
>> > +1 master/slave; no change needed
>> >
>> > There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at
>> > this point. If people want to change the names in their client
>> > presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning
>> > that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
>> > elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technical
>> > jargon and have no social implications within such context.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <toenshoff@me.com
>> > <ma...@me.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process] 3.
>> >> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
>> >> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
>> >> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official"
>> >> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
>> >> step.
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -- James DeFelice 585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> (voice)
>> > 650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> (fax)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com
>> > <http://gmail.com>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
>> tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
>> sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
>> afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
>> ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
>> cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
>> =niNh
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>Emilien Kenler
> Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>
> ------------------------------
> TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS+ 81 (0)3-4550-1448|Website
> <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter <https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook
> <http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp>
>
Re: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Emilien Kenler <ek...@wizcorp.jp>.
+1 for keeping master/slave.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal) <pa...@huawei.com>
wrote:
> +1 master/slave.
>
>
>
> These are only terminologies in software architecture. They have
> different definitions from those of social or political view.
>
>
>
> *发件人:* zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com]
> *发送时间:* 2015年6月5日 10:40
> *收件人:* user@mesos.apache.org
> *主题:* Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>
>
>
> +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>
>
>
> 2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <an...@malloc64.com>:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> +1 master/slave
>
> James made some very good points and there is no technical reason for
> wasting time on this.
>
> On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
> > +1 master/slave, no change needed.
> >
> > I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is a
> > well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined). This
> > is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as far
> > as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
> > nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste of
> > time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
> > adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early stages
> > of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
> > whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
> > case ;)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <erenguven0@gmail.com
> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > +1 master/slave, no change needed
> >
> > Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
> > agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade
> > pains.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xiaods@gmail.com
> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
> > circumstance.
> >
> > 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <james.defelice@gmail.com
> > <ma...@gmail.com>>:
> >
> > -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
> >
> > +1 master/slave; no change needed
> >
> > There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at
> > this point. If people want to change the names in their client
> > presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning
> > that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
> > elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technical
> > jargon and have no social implications within such context.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <toenshoff@me.com
> > <ma...@me.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process] 3.
> >> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
> >> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
> >> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official"
> >> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
> >> step.
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- James DeFelice 585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> (voice)
> > 650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> (fax)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com
> > <http://gmail.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
> tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
> sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
> afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
> ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
> cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
> =niNh
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
--
<http://www.wizcorp.jp/>Emilien Kenler
Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>
------------------------------
TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS+ 81 (0)3-4550-1448|Website
<http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter <https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp>
答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by "Panyungao (Wingoal)" <pa...@huawei.com>.
+1 master/slave.
These are only terminologies in software architecture. They have different definitions from those of social or political view.
发件人: zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtlord@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2015年6月5日 10:40
收件人: user@mesos.apache.org
主题: Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
+1 master/slave, no change needed.
2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <an...@malloc64.com>>:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
+1 master/slave
James made some very good points and there is no technical reason for
wasting time on this.
On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
> +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>
> I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is a
> well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined). This
> is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as far
> as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
> nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste of
> time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
> adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early stages
> of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
> whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
> case ;)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jim
>
>
> On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <er...@gmail.com>
> <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> +1 master/slave, no change needed
>
> Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
> agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade
> pains.
>
> Cheers
>
> On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xi...@gmail.com>
> <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
> circumstance.
>
> 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <ja...@gmail.com>
> <ma...@gmail.com>>>:
>
> -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
>
> +1 master/slave; no change needed
>
> There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at
> this point. If people want to change the names in their client
> presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning
> that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
> elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technical
> jargon and have no social implications within such context.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <to...@me.com>
> <ma...@me.com>>> wrote:
>
>> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process] 3.
>> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
>> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
>> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official"
>> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
>> step.
>
> +1
>
>
>
>
> -- James DeFelice 585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> (voice)
> 650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> (fax)
>
>
>
>
> -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com<http://gmail.com>
> <http://gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
=niNh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by zhou weitao <zh...@gmail.com>.
+1 master/slave, no change needed.
2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <an...@malloc64.com>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> +1 master/slave
>
> James made some very good points and there is no technical reason for
> wasting time on this.
>
> On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
> > +1 master/slave, no change needed.
> >
> > I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is a
> > well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined). This
> > is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as far
> > as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
> > nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste of
> > time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
> > adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early stages
> > of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
> > whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
> > case ;)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <erenguven0@gmail.com
> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > +1 master/slave, no change needed
> >
> > Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
> > agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade
> > pains.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xiaods@gmail.com
> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
> > circumstance.
> >
> > 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <james.defelice@gmail.com
> > <ma...@gmail.com>>:
> >
> > -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
> >
> > +1 master/slave; no change needed
> >
> > There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at
> > this point. If people want to change the names in their client
> > presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning
> > that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
> > elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technical
> > jargon and have no social implications within such context.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <toenshoff@me.com
> > <ma...@me.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process] 3.
> >> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
> >> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
> >> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official"
> >> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
> >> step.
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- James DeFelice 585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> (voice)
> > 650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> (fax)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com
> > <http://gmail.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
> tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
> sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
> afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
> ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
> cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
> =niNh
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Ankur Chauhan <an...@malloc64.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
+1 master/slave
James made some very good points and there is no technical reason for
wasting time on this.
On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
> +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>
> I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is a
> well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined). This
> is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as far
> as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
> nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste of
> time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
> adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early stages
> of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
> whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
> case ;)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jim
>
>
> On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <erenguven0@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> +1 master/slave, no change needed
>
> Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
> agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade
> pains.
>
> Cheers
>
> On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xiaods@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
> circumstance.
>
> 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <james.defelice@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>>:
>
> -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower
>
> +1 master/slave; no change needed
>
> There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at
> this point. If people want to change the names in their client
> presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning
> that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and
> elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are technical
> jargon and have no social implications within such context.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <toenshoff@me.com
> <ma...@me.com>> wrote:
>
>> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker [process] 3.
>> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
>> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the
>> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official"
>> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first
>> step.
>
> +1
>
>
>
>
> -- James DeFelice 585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> (voice)
> 650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> (fax)
>
>
>
>
> -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com
> <http://gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki
tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh
sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98
afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5
ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/
cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0=
=niNh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by James Vanns <jv...@gmail.com>.
+1 master/slave, no change needed.
I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is a well
understood common convention (if it isn't well defined). This is making an
issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as far as I see it - I
don't have a habit of confusing software/systems nomenclature with moral
high ground. This would just be a waste of time and not just for developers
but for those adopting/who have adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new
project at the early stages of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call
master/slave whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were
the case ;)
Cheers,
Jim
On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 master/slave, no change needed
>
> Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also agree
> with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade pains.
>
> Cheers
>
> On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
>> circumstance.
>>
>> 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <ja...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> -1 master/worker
>>> -1 master/agent
>>> -1 leader/follower
>>>
>>> +1 master/slave; no change needed
>>>
>>> There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at this
>>> point. If people want to change the names in their client presentations
>>> that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning that is lost otherwise.
>>> In this context of this project (and elsewhere in Engineering-related
>>> fields) the terms are technical jargon and have no social implications
>>> within such context.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <to...@me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
>>>> 2. Mesos Worker [process]
>>>> 3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
>>>> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and
>>>> change old references over time. Fixing the "official" name, even before
>>>> changes are in place, would be a good first step.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> James DeFelice
>>> 585.241.9488 (voice)
>>> 650.649.6071 (fax)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Deshi Xiao
>> Twitter: xds2000
>> E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com
>>
>
>
--
--
Senior Code Pig
Industrial Light & Magic
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Eren Güven <er...@gmail.com>.
+1 master/slave, no change needed
Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also agree with
Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade pains.
Cheers
On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <xi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
> circumstance.
>
> 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <ja...@gmail.com>:
>
>> -1 master/worker
>> -1 master/agent
>> -1 leader/follower
>>
>> +1 master/slave; no change needed
>>
>> There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at this
>> point. If people want to change the names in their client presentations
>> that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning that is lost otherwise.
>> In this context of this project (and elsewhere in Engineering-related
>> fields) the terms are technical jargon and have no social implications
>> within such context.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <to...@me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
>>> 2. Mesos Worker [process]
>>> 3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
>>> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and
>>> change old references over time. Fixing the "official" name, even before
>>> changes are in place, would be a good first step.
>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James DeFelice
>> 585.241.9488 (voice)
>> 650.649.6071 (fax)
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Deshi Xiao
> Twitter: xds2000
> E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by tommy xiao <xi...@gmail.com>.
+1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for any
circumstance.
2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice <ja...@gmail.com>:
> -1 master/worker
> -1 master/agent
> -1 leader/follower
>
> +1 master/slave; no change needed
>
> There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at this
> point. If people want to change the names in their client presentations
> that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning that is lost otherwise.
> In this context of this project (and elsewhere in Engineering-related
> fields) the terms are technical jargon and have no social implications
> within such context.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <to...@me.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
>> 2. Mesos Worker [process]
>> 3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
>> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and
>> change old references over time. Fixing the "official" name, even before
>> changes are in place, would be a good first step.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James DeFelice
> 585.241.9488 (voice)
> 650.649.6071 (fax)
>
--
Deshi Xiao
Twitter: xds2000
E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Ondrej Smola <on...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
-1 master/worker
-1 master/agent
-1 leader/follower
+1 master/slave
Suggestion:
+1 brain/hands
+1 policeman/civilian
In both cases - rename it later :)
I think the Mesos project is not in the stage where these "extremely
important problems" deserve such a waste of smart people's time.
Have a nice day :)
2015-06-04 16:06 GMT+02:00 James DeFelice <ja...@gmail.com>:
> -1 master/worker
> -1 master/agent
> -1 leader/follower
>
> +1 master/slave; no change needed
>
> There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at this
> point. If people want to change the names in their client presentations
> that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning that is lost otherwise.
> In this context of this project (and elsewhere in Engineering-related
> fields) the terms are technical jargon and have no social implications
> within such context.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <to...@me.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
>> 2. Mesos Worker [process]
>> 3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
>> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and
>> change old references over time. Fixing the "official" name, even before
>> changes are in place, would be a good first step.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James DeFelice
> 585.241.9488 (voice)
> 650.649.6071 (fax)
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by James DeFelice <ja...@gmail.com>.
-1 master/worker
-1 master/agent
-1 leader/follower
+1 master/slave; no change needed
There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at this
point. If people want to change the names in their client presentations
that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning that is lost otherwise.
In this context of this project (and elsewhere in Engineering-related
fields) the terms are technical jargon and have no social implications
within such context.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <to...@me.com> wrote:
> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
> 2. Mesos Worker [process]
> 3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and
> change old references over time. Fixing the "official" name, even before
> changes are in place, would be a good first step.
>
>
> +1
>
--
James DeFelice
585.241.9488 (voice)
650.649.6071 (fax)
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by James DeFelice <ja...@gmail.com>.
-1 master/worker
-1 master/agent
-1 leader/follower
+1 master/slave; no change needed
There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at this
point. If people want to change the names in their client presentations
that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning that is lost otherwise.
In this context of this project (and elsewhere in Engineering-related
fields) the terms are technical jargon and have no social implications
within such context.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff <to...@me.com> wrote:
> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
> 2. Mesos Worker [process]
> 3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and
> change old references over time. Fixing the "official" name, even before
> changes are in place, would be a good first step.
>
>
> +1
>
--
James DeFelice
585.241.9488 (voice)
650.649.6071 (fax)
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Till Toenshoff <to...@me.com>.
> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
> 2. Mesos Worker [process]
> 3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official" name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first step.
+1
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Vetoshkin Nikita <ni...@gmail.com>.
1) Mesos Agent maybe? Agent (in law e.g.) is someone acting on behalf of
other person. That is right what we have, mesos-slave isn't a worker and
shouldn't be - it should let others work.
2) mesos-agent
Although I personally like Google terminology - Borg master and borglet,
Omega master and omlet. Any thoughts?
3) Master is OK.
4) Start fixing documentation and change code/binaries in some major
release with other backward incompatible changes.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015, 18:45 Chris Aniszczyk <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Mesos Worker
> 2) Mesos Worker
> 3) no, I'm OK with Mesos Master
> 4) announce the change as part of a new release and deprecate the old names
> publicly; this may also be a good time to consider crafting an official
> deprecation policy for the project so we're transparent with how
> deprecation will work in the future
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Connor Doyle <co...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
> > 2. Mesos Worker [process]
> > 3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
> > 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and
> > change old references over time. Fixing the "official" name, even before
> > changes are in place, would be a good first step.
> >
> > --
> > Connor
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 1, 2015, at 14:18, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> > "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
> > >
> > > I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and
> > if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> > discussion and call for a VOTE.
> > > Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> > > 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> > > 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> > > 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
> > >
> > > Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> > necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> > name(s).
> > > 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
> > >
> > > Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > -Adam-
> > >
> > > P.S. My personal thoughts:
> > > 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> > > 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> > > 3. No
> > > 4. Carefully
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Chris Aniszczyk
> http://aniszczyk.org
> +1 512 961 6719
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Chris Aniszczyk <ca...@gmail.com>.
1) Mesos Worker
2) Mesos Worker
3) no, I'm OK with Mesos Master
4) announce the change as part of a new release and deprecate the old names
publicly; this may also be a good time to consider crafting an official
deprecation policy for the project so we're transparent with how
deprecation will work in the future
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Connor Doyle <co...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> +1
>
> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
> 2. Mesos Worker [process]
> 3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and
> change old references over time. Fixing the "official" name, even before
> changes are in place, would be a good first step.
>
> --
> Connor
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 2015, at 14:18, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> >
> > There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
> >
> > I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and
> if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> > Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> > 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> > 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> > 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
> >
> > Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> > 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
> >
> > Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -Adam-
> >
> > P.S. My personal thoughts:
> > 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> > 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> > 3. No
> > 4. Carefully
>
>
--
Cheers,
Chris Aniszczyk
http://aniszczyk.org
+1 512 961 6719
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Chris Aniszczyk <ca...@gmail.com>.
1) Mesos Worker
2) Mesos Worker
3) no, I'm OK with Mesos Master
4) announce the change as part of a new release and deprecate the old names
publicly; this may also be a good time to consider crafting an official
deprecation policy for the project so we're transparent with how
deprecation will work in the future
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Connor Doyle <co...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> +1
>
> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
> 2. Mesos Worker [process]
> 3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and
> change old references over time. Fixing the "official" name, even before
> changes are in place, would be a good first step.
>
> --
> Connor
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 2015, at 14:18, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> >
> > There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
> >
> > I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and
> if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> > Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> > 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> > 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> > 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
> >
> > Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> > 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
> >
> > Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -Adam-
> >
> > P.S. My personal thoughts:
> > 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> > 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> > 3. No
> > 4. Carefully
>
>
--
Cheers,
Chris Aniszczyk
http://aniszczyk.org
+1 512 961 6719
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Till Toenshoff <to...@me.com>.
> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
> 2. Mesos Worker [process]
> 3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official" name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first step.
+1
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Connor Doyle <co...@mesosphere.io>.
+1
1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
2. Mesos Worker [process]
3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official" name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first step.
--
Connor
> On Jun 1, 2015, at 14:18, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
Dave,
I am not saying that we should make the decision solely based on
organization votes. This is just an extra input we can use while making the
decision.
By looking at the threads, looks like we don't have a community consensus
here. Then the question is: how do we make a *better* decision without a
community consensus.
I would like get inputs from organization's perspective because I believe
the order of complexities of changing the internal config/monitoring stack
within organizations are the same regardless of their sizes. So gathering
inputs from that perspective should be helpful for us to make a better
decision.
- Jie
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Dave Lester <da...@davelester.org> wrote:
> Hi Jie,
>
> I understand your concern here, but within Apache projects,
> "organizations" do not have a voice/vote -- people do.
>
> I think should take into strong consideration the overhead any change
> may have on any adopter/organization and discuss those risks and
> problems openly, but ideally this decision would be made based upon
> consensus within the community. If consensus cannot be reached, a vote
> among committers may be necessary.
>
> Dave
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015, at 08:52 AM, Jie Yu wrote:
> > Adam,
> >
> > If a vote is called out, how do we decide if it passes or not. Will that
> > be
> > the same of voting for a release (i.e., PMC member can veto it)?
> >
> > I would imagine that some PMC members might want to express some negative
> > feedbacks on this, but certainly do not want to veto it. How do we deal
> > with this situation?
> >
> > As already pointed out in the thread, this name change requires large
> > amount of work on changing the internal config files, monitoring stack
> > and
> > a complicated rolling out procedure.
> >
> > Because of that, I would like to propose that we also *count votes by
> > organization* and take that into account. We probably don't want to pass
> > a
> > vote if a majority of the organizations do not want it, right? We'll
> > decide
> > each organization's +1/-1 by looking at votes from their employees (e.g.,
> > by majority).
> >
> > If one does not have an organization associated with, his/her vote will
> > be
> > put into a separate pool. If an organization wants to stay anonymous,
> > just
> > use a label (but make sure to use the same label if there are multiple
> > votes from the same organization).
> >
> > How does that sound?
> >
> > - Jie
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> > > "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
> > >
> > > I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and
> if
> > > we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> > > discussion and call for a VOTE.
> > > Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> > > 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> > > 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> > > 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
> > >
> > > Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> > > necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> > > name(s).
> > > 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
> > >
> > > Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > -Adam-
> > >
> > > P.S. My personal thoughts:
> > > 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> > > 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> > > 3. No
> > > 4. Carefully
> > >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
Dave,
I am not saying that we should make the decision solely based on
organization votes. This is just an extra input we can use while making the
decision.
By looking at the threads, looks like we don't have a community consensus
here. Then the question is: how do we make a *better* decision without a
community consensus.
I would like get inputs from organization's perspective because I believe
the order of complexities of changing the internal config/monitoring stack
within organizations are the same regardless of their sizes. So gathering
inputs from that perspective should be helpful for us to make a better
decision.
- Jie
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Dave Lester <da...@davelester.org> wrote:
> Hi Jie,
>
> I understand your concern here, but within Apache projects,
> "organizations" do not have a voice/vote -- people do.
>
> I think should take into strong consideration the overhead any change
> may have on any adopter/organization and discuss those risks and
> problems openly, but ideally this decision would be made based upon
> consensus within the community. If consensus cannot be reached, a vote
> among committers may be necessary.
>
> Dave
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015, at 08:52 AM, Jie Yu wrote:
> > Adam,
> >
> > If a vote is called out, how do we decide if it passes or not. Will that
> > be
> > the same of voting for a release (i.e., PMC member can veto it)?
> >
> > I would imagine that some PMC members might want to express some negative
> > feedbacks on this, but certainly do not want to veto it. How do we deal
> > with this situation?
> >
> > As already pointed out in the thread, this name change requires large
> > amount of work on changing the internal config files, monitoring stack
> > and
> > a complicated rolling out procedure.
> >
> > Because of that, I would like to propose that we also *count votes by
> > organization* and take that into account. We probably don't want to pass
> > a
> > vote if a majority of the organizations do not want it, right? We'll
> > decide
> > each organization's +1/-1 by looking at votes from their employees (e.g.,
> > by majority).
> >
> > If one does not have an organization associated with, his/her vote will
> > be
> > put into a separate pool. If an organization wants to stay anonymous,
> > just
> > use a label (but make sure to use the same label if there are multiple
> > votes from the same organization).
> >
> > How does that sound?
> >
> > - Jie
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> > > "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
> > >
> > > I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and
> if
> > > we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> > > discussion and call for a VOTE.
> > > Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> > > 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> > > 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> > > 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
> > >
> > > Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> > > necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> > > name(s).
> > > 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
> > >
> > > Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > -Adam-
> > >
> > > P.S. My personal thoughts:
> > > 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> > > 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> > > 3. No
> > > 4. Carefully
> > >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Dave Lester <da...@davelester.org>.
Hi Jie,
I understand your concern here, but within Apache projects,
"organizations" do not have a voice/vote -- people do.
I think should take into strong consideration the overhead any change
may have on any adopter/organization and discuss those risks and
problems openly, but ideally this decision would be made based upon
consensus within the community. If consensus cannot be reached, a vote
among committers may be necessary.
Dave
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015, at 08:52 AM, Jie Yu wrote:
> Adam,
>
> If a vote is called out, how do we decide if it passes or not. Will that
> be
> the same of voting for a release (i.e., PMC member can veto it)?
>
> I would imagine that some PMC members might want to express some negative
> feedbacks on this, but certainly do not want to veto it. How do we deal
> with this situation?
>
> As already pointed out in the thread, this name change requires large
> amount of work on changing the internal config files, monitoring stack
> and
> a complicated rolling out procedure.
>
> Because of that, I would like to propose that we also *count votes by
> organization* and take that into account. We probably don't want to pass
> a
> vote if a majority of the organizations do not want it, right? We'll
> decide
> each organization's +1/-1 by looking at votes from their employees (e.g.,
> by majority).
>
> If one does not have an organization associated with, his/her vote will
> be
> put into a separate pool. If an organization wants to stay anonymous,
> just
> use a label (but make sure to use the same label if there are multiple
> votes from the same organization).
>
> How does that sound?
>
> - Jie
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
> > There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> > "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
> >
> > I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> > we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> > discussion and call for a VOTE.
> > Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> > 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> > 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> > 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
> >
> > Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> > necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> > name(s).
> > 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
> >
> > Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -Adam-
> >
> > P.S. My personal thoughts:
> > 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> > 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> > 3. No
> > 4. Carefully
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
Adam,
If a vote is called out, how do we decide if it passes or not. Will that be
the same of voting for a release (i.e., PMC member can veto it)?
I would imagine that some PMC members might want to express some negative
feedbacks on this, but certainly do not want to veto it. How do we deal
with this situation?
As already pointed out in the thread, this name change requires large
amount of work on changing the internal config files, monitoring stack and
a complicated rolling out procedure.
Because of that, I would like to propose that we also *count votes by
organization* and take that into account. We probably don't want to pass a
vote if a majority of the organizations do not want it, right? We'll decide
each organization's +1/-1 by looking at votes from their employees (e.g.,
by majority).
If one does not have an organization associated with, his/her vote will be
put into a separate pool. If an organization wants to stay anonymous, just
use a label (but make sure to use the same label if there are multiple
votes from the same organization).
How does that sound?
- Jie
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Jim Klucar <kl...@gmail.com>.
I'm not really for or against changing the name, but I am against the
leader/follower suggestions. To me, leader/follower is more of a high
availability construct. e.g. running multiple Mesos master processes, just
in case one dies. One master would be the leader and the others the
follower until a new leader is needed like Zookeeper.
Also, this seems to be a hot topic, and I did see the Apache rules posted
in another thread here, but please refrain from personal attacks as they
aren't constructive (sun-baked Californians, etc)
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Aaron Carey <ac...@ilm.com> wrote:
> Thanks James,
>
> Interesting background!
> ________________________________________
> From: CCAAT [ccaat@tampabay.rr.com]
> Sent: 04 June 2015 14:05
> To: user@mesos.apache.org
> Cc: ccaat@tampabay.rr.com
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>
> On 06/04/2015 02:32 AM, Aaron Carey wrote:
> > +1 to Itamar.
> >
> > I'd be interested to hear any case studies of how this has been handled
> > in other OS projects with master/slave namings if anyone can give
> examples?
>
> Sure it's easy to reasearch, just use 'master-slave' in your search
> strings. Here is a good place to start:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)
>
>
> hth,
> James
>
>
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Itamar Ostricher [itamar@yowza3d.com]
> > *Sent:* 04 June 2015 05:38
> > *To:* user@mesos.apache.org
> > *Cc:* dev
> > *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
> >
> > Strong -1 for changing the name (either master or slave).
> >
> > From a community stand point, if dev resources are diverted to renaming
> > efforts, then the community and the user base both lose meaningful
> > functionality that isn't being worked on.
> >
> > From a using organization stand point, as well as framework developer
> > perspective, I follow mesos releases pretty closely, and I'm confident
> > that the version that deprecates backward compatibility with the current
> > names will be a version I will not be able to adopt for months, if at
> all...
> >
> > So please don't do that, or if you do, consider leaving in a
> > configuration option to keep the current names for sane upgrades.
>
>
RE: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Aaron Carey <ac...@ilm.com>.
Thanks James,
Interesting background!
________________________________________
From: CCAAT [ccaat@tampabay.rr.com]
Sent: 04 June 2015 14:05
To: user@mesos.apache.org
Cc: ccaat@tampabay.rr.com
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
On 06/04/2015 02:32 AM, Aaron Carey wrote:
> +1 to Itamar.
>
> I'd be interested to hear any case studies of how this has been handled
> in other OS projects with master/slave namings if anyone can give examples?
Sure it's easy to reasearch, just use 'master-slave' in your search
strings. Here is a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)
hth,
James
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Itamar Ostricher [itamar@yowza3d.com]
> *Sent:* 04 June 2015 05:38
> *To:* user@mesos.apache.org
> *Cc:* dev
> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>
> Strong -1 for changing the name (either master or slave).
>
> From a community stand point, if dev resources are diverted to renaming
> efforts, then the community and the user base both lose meaningful
> functionality that isn't being worked on.
>
> From a using organization stand point, as well as framework developer
> perspective, I follow mesos releases pretty closely, and I'm confident
> that the version that deprecates backward compatibility with the current
> names will be a version I will not be able to adopt for months, if at all...
>
> So please don't do that, or if you do, consider leaving in a
> configuration option to keep the current names for sane upgrades.
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com>.
On 06/04/2015 02:32 AM, Aaron Carey wrote:
> +1 to Itamar.
>
> I'd be interested to hear any case studies of how this has been handled
> in other OS projects with master/slave namings if anyone can give examples?
Sure it's easy to reasearch, just use 'master-slave' in your search
strings. Here is a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)
hth,
James
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Itamar Ostricher [itamar@yowza3d.com]
> *Sent:* 04 June 2015 05:38
> *To:* user@mesos.apache.org
> *Cc:* dev
> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>
> Strong -1 for changing the name (either master or slave).
>
> From a community stand point, if dev resources are diverted to renaming
> efforts, then the community and the user base both lose meaningful
> functionality that isn't being worked on.
>
> From a using organization stand point, as well as framework developer
> perspective, I follow mesos releases pretty closely, and I'm confident
> that the version that deprecates backward compatibility with the current
> names will be a version I will not be able to adopt for months, if at all...
>
> So please don't do that, or if you do, consider leaving in a
> configuration option to keep the current names for sane upgrades.
RE: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Aaron Carey <ac...@ilm.com>.
+1 to Itamar.
I'd be interested to hear any case studies of how this has been handled in other OS projects with master/slave namings if anyone can give examples?
________________________________
From: Itamar Ostricher [itamar@yowza3d.com]
Sent: 04 June 2015 05:38
To: user@mesos.apache.org
Cc: dev
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Strong -1 for changing the name (either master or slave).
>From a community stand point, if dev resources are diverted to renaming efforts, then the community and the user base both lose meaningful functionality that isn't being worked on.
>From a using organization stand point, as well as framework developer perspective, I follow mesos releases pretty closely, and I'm confident that the version that deprecates backward compatibility with the current names will be a version I will not be able to adopt for months, if at all...
So please don't do that, or if you do, consider leaving in a configuration option to keep the current names for sane upgrades.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015, 06:42 Benjamin Staffin <be...@folsomlabs.com>> wrote:
1. Mesos Worker (or just Mesos node)
2. Mesos Worker
3. No, but if we do then Leader or Director or Controller
4. Deprecation cycle, documentation, etc. Provide aliases for a release or two.
Thanks for raising this topic; it's been on my mind for a while.
As for why I think this matters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io>> wrote:
There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the discussion and call for a VOTE.
Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new name(s).
4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
Thanks!
-Adam-
P.S. My personal thoughts:
1. Mesos Worker [Node]
2. Mesos Worker or Agent
3. No
4. Carefully
RE: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Aaron Carey <ac...@ilm.com>.
+1 to Itamar.
I'd be interested to hear any case studies of how this has been handled in other OS projects with master/slave namings if anyone can give examples?
________________________________
From: Itamar Ostricher [itamar@yowza3d.com]
Sent: 04 June 2015 05:38
To: user@mesos.apache.org
Cc: dev
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Strong -1 for changing the name (either master or slave).
>From a community stand point, if dev resources are diverted to renaming efforts, then the community and the user base both lose meaningful functionality that isn't being worked on.
>From a using organization stand point, as well as framework developer perspective, I follow mesos releases pretty closely, and I'm confident that the version that deprecates backward compatibility with the current names will be a version I will not be able to adopt for months, if at all...
So please don't do that, or if you do, consider leaving in a configuration option to keep the current names for sane upgrades.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015, 06:42 Benjamin Staffin <be...@folsomlabs.com>> wrote:
1. Mesos Worker (or just Mesos node)
2. Mesos Worker
3. No, but if we do then Leader or Director or Controller
4. Deprecation cycle, documentation, etc. Provide aliases for a release or two.
Thanks for raising this topic; it's been on my mind for a while.
As for why I think this matters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io>> wrote:
There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the discussion and call for a VOTE.
Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new name(s).
4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
Thanks!
-Adam-
P.S. My personal thoughts:
1. Mesos Worker [Node]
2. Mesos Worker or Agent
3. No
4. Carefully
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Itamar Ostricher <it...@yowza3d.com>.
Strong -1 for changing the name (either master or slave).
>From a community stand point, if dev resources are diverted to renaming
efforts, then the community and the user base both lose meaningful
functionality that isn't being worked on.
>From a using organization stand point, as well as framework developer
perspective, I follow mesos releases pretty closely, and I'm confident that
the version that deprecates backward compatibility with the current names
will be a version I will not be able to adopt for months, if at all...
So please don't do that, or if you do, consider leaving in a configuration
option to keep the current names for sane upgrades.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015, 06:42 Benjamin Staffin <be...@folsomlabs.com> wrote:
> 1. Mesos Worker (or just Mesos node)
> 2. Mesos Worker
> 3. No, but if we do then Leader or Director or Controller
> 4. Deprecation cycle, documentation, etc. Provide aliases for a release or
> two.
>
> Thanks for raising this topic; it's been on my mind for a while.
>
> As for why I think this matters:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
>> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
>> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>>
>> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
>> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
>> discussion and call for a VOTE.
>> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
>> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
>> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
>> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>>
>> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
>> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
>> name(s).
>> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>>
>> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Adam-
>>
>> P.S. My personal thoughts:
>> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
>> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
>> 3. No
>> 4. Carefully
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Itamar Ostricher <it...@yowza3d.com>.
Strong -1 for changing the name (either master or slave).
>From a community stand point, if dev resources are diverted to renaming
efforts, then the community and the user base both lose meaningful
functionality that isn't being worked on.
>From a using organization stand point, as well as framework developer
perspective, I follow mesos releases pretty closely, and I'm confident that
the version that deprecates backward compatibility with the current names
will be a version I will not be able to adopt for months, if at all...
So please don't do that, or if you do, consider leaving in a configuration
option to keep the current names for sane upgrades.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015, 06:42 Benjamin Staffin <be...@folsomlabs.com> wrote:
> 1. Mesos Worker (or just Mesos node)
> 2. Mesos Worker
> 3. No, but if we do then Leader or Director or Controller
> 4. Deprecation cycle, documentation, etc. Provide aliases for a release or
> two.
>
> Thanks for raising this topic; it's been on my mind for a while.
>
> As for why I think this matters:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
>> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
>> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>>
>> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
>> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
>> discussion and call for a VOTE.
>> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
>> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
>> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
>> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>>
>> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
>> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
>> name(s).
>> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>>
>> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Adam-
>>
>> P.S. My personal thoughts:
>> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
>> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
>> 3. No
>> 4. Carefully
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Benjamin Staffin <be...@folsomlabs.com>.
1. Mesos Worker (or just Mesos node)
2. Mesos Worker
3. No, but if we do then Leader or Director or Controller
4. Deprecation cycle, documentation, etc. Provide aliases for a release or
two.
Thanks for raising this topic; it's been on my mind for a while.
As for why I think this matters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Ankur Chauhan <an...@malloc64.com>.
Adding my two cents:
If I have seen the following terminology being in a some places:
Mesos-master => director/orchestrator : the reasoning here is simple, there
is always only one orchestrator and has the job of directing others to do
as per the current requirements. The group of orchestrators is referred to
as an ensemble in the zookeeper sense and hence we world be able to use the
leader-follower understanding straight away.
Mesos-slave => resource provider: the reasoning here is not host based
because the slave process simply does the process of creating resource
offers. It has no concept of the node if I was to squint at it a little. We
tell it what resources are available and it provides them to the
orchestrator for consumption.
Again, nothing here is ground breaking and that is the point. There is a
lot of knowledge that can be instantly used if we use common names that
represent the underlying concepts and not done goofy names which mean
nothing and make me relearn ( unless a case can be made that the concept
being represented is actually novel ).
-- Ankur
On Jun 3, 2015 8:19 AM, "Tony Becker" <tb...@fortpedro.com> wrote:
> I tweeted this suggestion to Brian Hicks and he asked me to send it to
> the list for consideration:
>
> How about Director/Drone?
>
> "Robot" (in the Čapek sense) would be good to replace "slave" too.
> Maybe Director/Robot?
>
> (This is just personal, but to me, leader/follower implies a certain
> level of human agency where there is none.)
>
> --
> Tony Becker
> Principal, Fort Pedro Informatics LLC
> Web: http://fortpedro.com
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Tony Becker <tb...@fortpedro.com>.
I tweeted this suggestion to Brian Hicks and he asked me to send it to
the list for consideration:
How about Director/Drone?
"Robot" (in the Čapek sense) would be good to replace "slave" too.
Maybe Director/Robot?
(This is just personal, but to me, leader/follower implies a certain
level of human agency where there is none.)
--
Tony Becker
Principal, Fort Pedro Informatics LLC
Web: http://fortpedro.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Diego Medina <di...@fmpwizard.com>.
+1 for Brian Hicks' leader/follower name and a huge +1 for the explanation
he gave
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Brian Hicks <br...@brianthicks.com> wrote:
> 1. We’ve been aliasing everything to “leader/follower” in the projects I’m
> a part of. I think it gets rid of the problematic language while still
> being descriptive of the architectural model. “agent” makes sense to me,
> too (since those processes do have agency in some situations) but I would
> call it a second choice, personally.
> 2. mesos-{whatever-we-decide}
> 3. I don’t think “master” is as problematic as “slave”, but it does have
> some of the same connotations. If we’re going to take the time to rename,
> we should rename both. But if it turns out to be infeasible from a project
> management standpoint, “master” will probably be fine.
> 4. same as others have said: start off with documentation changes, follow
> through with code changes. Deprecate the old binary names over several
> versions, to avoid a cliff.
>
> For what it’s worth, I think it’s good that the Mesos project understands
> that the words we use have different meanings to different people. While I
> am not “offended” by the current terminology I understand that master/slave
> has a strong connotation towards ongoing civil and human rights abuses, and
> I would seek to distance the project from that. Continuing to make these
> words part of our everyday lexicon normalizes oppressive structures, and
> sends a strong signal to people outside the “blessed” group. Mesos is an
> industry-leading technology, and we have a responsibility to build an
> inclusive and friendly community. This is not only for the good of the
> product, but for the good of the industry and all the people whose lives
> are effected by it.
>
> So, strong +1.
>
> Brian Hicks
>
>
> On Monday, June 1, 2015, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
>> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>>
>> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
>> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
>> discussion and call for a VOTE.
>> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
>> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
>> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
>> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>>
>> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
>> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
>> name(s).
>> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>>
>> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Adam-
>>
>> P.S. My personal thoughts:
>> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
>> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
>> 3. No
>> 4. Carefully
>>
>
--
Diego Medina
Lift/Scala consultant
diego@fmpwizard.com
http://fmpwizard.telegr.am
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Diego Medina <di...@fmpwizard.com>.
+1 for Brian Hicks' leader/follower name and a huge +1 for the explanation
he gave
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Brian Hicks <br...@brianthicks.com> wrote:
> 1. We’ve been aliasing everything to “leader/follower” in the projects I’m
> a part of. I think it gets rid of the problematic language while still
> being descriptive of the architectural model. “agent” makes sense to me,
> too (since those processes do have agency in some situations) but I would
> call it a second choice, personally.
> 2. mesos-{whatever-we-decide}
> 3. I don’t think “master” is as problematic as “slave”, but it does have
> some of the same connotations. If we’re going to take the time to rename,
> we should rename both. But if it turns out to be infeasible from a project
> management standpoint, “master” will probably be fine.
> 4. same as others have said: start off with documentation changes, follow
> through with code changes. Deprecate the old binary names over several
> versions, to avoid a cliff.
>
> For what it’s worth, I think it’s good that the Mesos project understands
> that the words we use have different meanings to different people. While I
> am not “offended” by the current terminology I understand that master/slave
> has a strong connotation towards ongoing civil and human rights abuses, and
> I would seek to distance the project from that. Continuing to make these
> words part of our everyday lexicon normalizes oppressive structures, and
> sends a strong signal to people outside the “blessed” group. Mesos is an
> industry-leading technology, and we have a responsibility to build an
> inclusive and friendly community. This is not only for the good of the
> product, but for the good of the industry and all the people whose lives
> are effected by it.
>
> So, strong +1.
>
> Brian Hicks
>
>
> On Monday, June 1, 2015, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
>> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>>
>> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
>> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
>> discussion and call for a VOTE.
>> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
>> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
>> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
>> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>>
>> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
>> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
>> name(s).
>> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>>
>> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Adam-
>>
>> P.S. My personal thoughts:
>> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
>> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
>> 3. No
>> 4. Carefully
>>
>
--
Diego Medina
Lift/Scala consultant
diego@fmpwizard.com
http://fmpwizard.telegr.am
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by "Heller, Chris" <ch...@akamai.com>.
In all truth, I think the reason this idea even has legs is that the
master/slave labels are not really accurate for the two mesos servers
based on their actual roles in a mesos cluster.
That said, I¹m not certain the roles can each be easily distilled down
into a single catch-all word.
"There are only two hard problems in Computer Science:
cache invalidation and naming things."
-- Phil Karlton
-Chris
On 6/3/15, 3:17 PM, "CCAAT" <cc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On 06/03/2015 09:27 AM, Brian Hicks wrote:
>> 1. We¹ve been aliasing everything to ³leader/follower² in the projects
>> I¹m a part of. I think it gets rid of the problematic language while
>> still being descriptive of the architectural model. ³agent² makes sense
>> to me, too (since those processes do have agency in some situations) but
>> I would call it a second choice, personally.
>
>With all due respect, I think my concerns are being ignored, so I going
>to attempt to shed some light on them, again.
>
>Backgound: Although most of my work is in software, Computer scientist,
>I also hold degrees in Electrical Engineering and PetroChemical
>Engineering. I am "a hardware guy" who writes code and implemnents
>technology long before it becomes an industry standard. As an older and
>definitely wiser engineer folks are not recognizing the problems that
>lead to 'shear idiocy' with some perceived benefit.
>
>IN computers we have busses. This is always a buss-master and slaves
>that participate in Buss arbitration as slaves are call
>'slave-processor. There are many analogies where you are going to leave
>hardware designers scratching their heads and laughing, loudly.
>
>Master-Slave is as much a mathematical term among its myriad of
>connotations. It means that master (A) 100% controls slave (B) in a
>fully deterministic fashion. It means slave (B) is 100% subservient to
>any future requirement yet to be defined or implemented by Master
>(A).It's a mathematical thing.
>
>I do not believe there is another word-pair in the English (globish)
>language that remotely displays this level of control nor instantaneous
>comprehension. Technology is built upon jargon; you mess with that you
>risk obscurity. The history of parallel process is a grave-yard of
>idiodic terminologies.
>
>Ah *CONTROL THEORY*. Master-Slave is as fundamental as arithmetic. In
>the industrial world there are billion if not trillions of master-slave
>relationships between hardware, systems and software. It's 100%
>deterministic (non-fuzzy unless you count 'dont-care states') for hard,
>practical reasons. Often something that acts autonomous, is changed and
>brought into "slave mode" to ensure correctness and determinism. A
>common example, If you have several process controllers in a series, the
>controller at the start of the arrow is always the 'master' and the
>controller at the point of the arrow is the slave. Instantly understood
>and universally accepted.
>
>It is a convention in hardware and software that is instantaneously
>understood. You change that nomenclature and folks are just going to
>scratch their head, stick up their hand and say isn't this just a
>master-slave relationship? Once you affirm that, then their second
>question is the totally predictable, so why not call it master-slave
>like everything else does? I could write textbooks on the engineering
>usage of 'master-slave' and never have I as an engineer with a
>Professional Certification have I never heard of this complaint about
>such a prcise meaning in terms. In engineering and science, english is
>the best and universal language, but it is mostly a struggle to approach
>such accuracy as the terms 'master-slave'. Please do not 'fuzzify' this
>well understood and universally accepted jargon. Surely
>you and others can find a better pathway for social improvement?
>
>
>Hardware-->Software-->applications.
>-----------------------------------
>
>I know this is a 'software-weenie' intensive group here developing and
>testing mesos; surely I fall into that category too. Hell, I build
>everything up form 100% sources as a gentoo aficionado. But, clusters
>and clouds will make their biggest splash in the 'hardware world', once
>ubiquitous computations and general software can be migrated to a
>cluster. Mesos is a candidate, but sticking with established industry
>jargon, is a very good idea, imo.
>
>Process Controls (the software, hardware and logic used to control
>pumps) by some estimates are responsible for more that 40% of all energy
>consumption on the globe. There is a gargantuan need to apply
>clustering, particularly ubiquitous clusters, so that faster and better
>software can have more features and support things like R, Scala, and
>Haskell. I'm already on contract to deliver a mesos cluster, to a
>company full of technicians to use for 'sensor fusion' and 'video
>analytics' Most technicians struggle with windows and macs yet every
>thing I've set up for them before on linux or bsd is wonderfully
>accepted and operated by *TECHNICIANS*. Please go spend some time in the
>field and deploy some state of the art software and train technicians to
>use, to 'master it' and how to fix it in the middle of the night so you
>can get some sleep (thank GOD for redundancy and hot spares). Cameras
>and sensors are 'slaved' to processes and controllers and software,
>routinely.
>
>I also am working with some computational chemistry folks (at a
>university) for customizing a cluster with very specific and bontiful
>embedded systems (FPGAs). Sorry, but the term master-slave is of
>paramount importance systemically in that project too.
>
>
>
>As a public speaker, as a consultant, as the defacto resident expert on
>matters of software-hardware interaction where ever I go, much to my
>chagrin, I can tell you unequivacolly I have never ever heard anybody
>complain about the term, master or slave or master-slave, in the many
>heterogeneous environments over the deecades from the deserts, to the
>arctic and places that do not formally exist. *NEVER*. But I will
>concede I avoid idiot psycologists and social engineering to those that
>like to *waste the time* of others. Me, I have to 'getter done' and
>master slave is not optional, its a fundamental mathematical
>relationship, since long before the 'Greek masters' and mathematicians.
>
>
>
>
>> 2. mesos-{whatever-we-decide}
>> 3. I don¹t think ³master² is as problematic as ³slave², but it does have
>> some of the same connotations. If we¹re going to take the time to
>> rename, we should rename both. But if it turns out to be infeasible from
>> a project management standpoint, ³master² will probably be fine.
>> 4. same as others have said: start off with documentation changes,
>> follow through with code changes. Deprecate the old binary names over
>> several versions, to avoid a cliff.
>
>Masters only have slaves. A master is 100% in control or some form of
>autonomy exists. So if you have a master, you have slaves. What level of
>math did you finish in school? Did you go to a good university or night
>school? You need to brush up on math, for this audience, imho.
>
>I previously suggested that this naming scheme be set up so as to be
>'user definable'. You know may 'preprocessor directives' or such. This
>would ease the transition across a few releases of mesos and allow for
>folks like myself to use industry standard jargon, i.e. to use correct
>terms with instantaneous understanding, in a fully deterministic manner.
>Where is the discussion on that propose solution? This solution
>of user definability is a win-win for all users of mesos. It also set
>the stage in the future for nodes that have some degree of well define
>autonomy or even experimentation with 'self-modifying-codes' among the
>slave populations. It even sets the state for node migration amoung
>differnent cluster solutions in data centers.
>
>So if you are fully determined to change the name, why not add some
>flexibiilty for the evolution of mesos, but allowing these and other
>terms to be 'user definable'?
>
>
>
>> For what it¹s worth, I think it¹s good that the Mesos project
>> understands that the words we use have different meanings to different
>> people. While I am not ³offended² by the current terminology I
>> understand that master/slave has a strong connotation towards ongoing
>> civil and human rights abuses, and I would seek to distance the project
>> from that. Continuing to make these words part of our everyday lexicon
>> normalizes oppressive structures, and sends a strong signal to people
>> outside the ³blessed² group.
>
>
>BLAH BLAH BLAH. Really? You sound like a pedantic defining a social evil
>that fills you full of guilt;but yet to instantiate for the rest of
>society. Can you name one actual person that is offended by the terms
>master-slave that will actually peruse the sources? Note: sun-baked
>Californians with little productive requirements at their job, do not
>count. Boy, I guess the drought is really tougher than the rest of us
>realized?
>
>
>> Mesos is an industry-leading technology, and we have a responsibility
>>to build an inclusive
>> and friendly community. This is not only for the good of the product,
>>but for
>> the good of the industry and all the people whose lives are effected
>>by it.
>
>Not if idiotic ideas like this dominate. I suggest you weigh this
>perceived benefit against the technical costs and the shear fact that if
>these 'workers' are 100% control, they are slaves in ALL common industry
>jargon. No wonder EEs laugh at CS folks. Just so you know
>there are EE that are building and operating computers that run on
>on waves (light). You might also directly comment on the idea of making
>these terms 'user definable'. Or is this just some form of tantrum?
>
>
>> So, strong +1.
>> Brian Hicks
>
>So a realistic and practical -1
>Sincerely
>James
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com>.
On 06/03/2015 09:27 AM, Brian Hicks wrote:
> 1. We’ve been aliasing everything to “leader/follower” in the projects
> I’m a part of. I think it gets rid of the problematic language while
> still being descriptive of the architectural model. “agent” makes sense
> to me, too (since those processes do have agency in some situations) but
> I would call it a second choice, personally.
With all due respect, I think my concerns are being ignored, so I going
to attempt to shed some light on them, again.
Backgound: Although most of my work is in software, Computer scientist,
I also hold degrees in Electrical Engineering and PetroChemical
Engineering. I am "a hardware guy" who writes code and implemnents
technology long before it becomes an industry standard. As an older and
definitely wiser engineer folks are not recognizing the problems that
lead to 'shear idiocy' with some perceived benefit.
IN computers we have busses. This is always a buss-master and slaves
that participate in Buss arbitration as slaves are call
'slave-processor. There are many analogies where you are going to leave
hardware designers scratching their heads and laughing, loudly.
Master-Slave is as much a mathematical term among its myriad of
connotations. It means that master (A) 100% controls slave (B) in a
fully deterministic fashion. It means slave (B) is 100% subservient to
any future requirement yet to be defined or implemented by Master
(A).It's a mathematical thing.
I do not believe there is another word-pair in the English (globish)
language that remotely displays this level of control nor instantaneous
comprehension. Technology is built upon jargon; you mess with that you
risk obscurity. The history of parallel process is a grave-yard of
idiodic terminologies.
Ah *CONTROL THEORY*. Master-Slave is as fundamental as arithmetic. In
the industrial world there are billion if not trillions of master-slave
relationships between hardware, systems and software. It's 100%
deterministic (non-fuzzy unless you count 'dont-care states') for hard,
practical reasons. Often something that acts autonomous, is changed and
brought into "slave mode" to ensure correctness and determinism. A
common example, If you have several process controllers in a series, the
controller at the start of the arrow is always the 'master' and the
controller at the point of the arrow is the slave. Instantly understood
and universally accepted.
It is a convention in hardware and software that is instantaneously
understood. You change that nomenclature and folks are just going to
scratch their head, stick up their hand and say isn't this just a
master-slave relationship? Once you affirm that, then their second
question is the totally predictable, so why not call it master-slave
like everything else does? I could write textbooks on the engineering
usage of 'master-slave' and never have I as an engineer with a
Professional Certification have I never heard of this complaint about
such a prcise meaning in terms. In engineering and science, english is
the best and universal language, but it is mostly a struggle to approach
such accuracy as the terms 'master-slave'. Please do not 'fuzzify' this
well understood and universally accepted jargon. Surely
you and others can find a better pathway for social improvement?
Hardware-->Software-->applications.
-----------------------------------
I know this is a 'software-weenie' intensive group here developing and
testing mesos; surely I fall into that category too. Hell, I build
everything up form 100% sources as a gentoo aficionado. But, clusters
and clouds will make their biggest splash in the 'hardware world', once
ubiquitous computations and general software can be migrated to a
cluster. Mesos is a candidate, but sticking with established industry
jargon, is a very good idea, imo.
Process Controls (the software, hardware and logic used to control
pumps) by some estimates are responsible for more that 40% of all energy
consumption on the globe. There is a gargantuan need to apply
clustering, particularly ubiquitous clusters, so that faster and better
software can have more features and support things like R, Scala, and
Haskell. I'm already on contract to deliver a mesos cluster, to a
company full of technicians to use for 'sensor fusion' and 'video
analytics' Most technicians struggle with windows and macs yet every
thing I've set up for them before on linux or bsd is wonderfully
accepted and operated by *TECHNICIANS*. Please go spend some time in the
field and deploy some state of the art software and train technicians to
use, to 'master it' and how to fix it in the middle of the night so you
can get some sleep (thank GOD for redundancy and hot spares). Cameras
and sensors are 'slaved' to processes and controllers and software,
routinely.
I also am working with some computational chemistry folks (at a
university) for customizing a cluster with very specific and bontiful
embedded systems (FPGAs). Sorry, but the term master-slave is of
paramount importance systemically in that project too.
As a public speaker, as a consultant, as the defacto resident expert on
matters of software-hardware interaction where ever I go, much to my
chagrin, I can tell you unequivacolly I have never ever heard anybody
complain about the term, master or slave or master-slave, in the many
heterogeneous environments over the deecades from the deserts, to the
arctic and places that do not formally exist. *NEVER*. But I will
concede I avoid idiot psycologists and social engineering to those that
like to *waste the time* of others. Me, I have to 'getter done' and
master slave is not optional, its a fundamental mathematical
relationship, since long before the 'Greek masters' and mathematicians.
> 2. mesos-{whatever-we-decide}
> 3. I don’t think “master” is as problematic as “slave”, but it does have
> some of the same connotations. If we’re going to take the time to
> rename, we should rename both. But if it turns out to be infeasible from
> a project management standpoint, “master” will probably be fine.
> 4. same as others have said: start off with documentation changes,
> follow through with code changes. Deprecate the old binary names over
> several versions, to avoid a cliff.
Masters only have slaves. A master is 100% in control or some form of
autonomy exists. So if you have a master, you have slaves. What level of
math did you finish in school? Did you go to a good university or night
school? You need to brush up on math, for this audience, imho.
I previously suggested that this naming scheme be set up so as to be
'user definable'. You know may 'preprocessor directives' or such. This
would ease the transition across a few releases of mesos and allow for
folks like myself to use industry standard jargon, i.e. to use correct
terms with instantaneous understanding, in a fully deterministic manner.
Where is the discussion on that propose solution? This solution
of user definability is a win-win for all users of mesos. It also set
the stage in the future for nodes that have some degree of well define
autonomy or even experimentation with 'self-modifying-codes' among the
slave populations. It even sets the state for node migration amoung
differnent cluster solutions in data centers.
So if you are fully determined to change the name, why not add some
flexibiilty for the evolution of mesos, but allowing these and other
terms to be 'user definable'?
> For what it’s worth, I think it’s good that the Mesos project
> understands that the words we use have different meanings to different
> people. While I am not “offended” by the current terminology I
> understand that master/slave has a strong connotation towards ongoing
> civil and human rights abuses, and I would seek to distance the project
> from that. Continuing to make these words part of our everyday lexicon
> normalizes oppressive structures, and sends a strong signal to people
> outside the “blessed” group.
BLAH BLAH BLAH. Really? You sound like a pedantic defining a social evil
that fills you full of guilt;but yet to instantiate for the rest of
society. Can you name one actual person that is offended by the terms
master-slave that will actually peruse the sources? Note: sun-baked
Californians with little productive requirements at their job, do not
count. Boy, I guess the drought is really tougher than the rest of us
realized?
> Mesos is an industry-leading technology, and we have a responsibility to build an inclusive
> and friendly community. This is not only for the good of the product, but for
> the good of the industry and all the people whose lives are effected by it.
Not if idiotic ideas like this dominate. I suggest you weigh this
perceived benefit against the technical costs and the shear fact that if
these 'workers' are 100% control, they are slaves in ALL common industry
jargon. No wonder EEs laugh at CS folks. Just so you know
there are EE that are building and operating computers that run on
on waves (light). You might also directly comment on the idea of making
these terms 'user definable'. Or is this just some form of tantrum?
> So, strong +1.
> Brian Hicks
So a realistic and practical -1
Sincerely
James
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Brian Hicks <br...@brianthicks.com>.
1. We’ve been aliasing everything to “leader/follower” in the
projects I’m a part of. I think it gets rid of the problematic
language while still being descriptive of the architectural model.
“agent” makes sense to me, too (since those processes do have agency
in some situations) but I would call it a second choice, personally.
2. mesos-{whatever-we-decide}
3. I don’t think “master” is as problematic as “slave”, but it
does have some of the same connotations. If we’re going to take the
time to rename, we should rename both. But if it turns out to be
infeasible from a project management standpoint, “master” will
probably be fine.
4. same as others have said: start off with documentation changes,
follow through with code changes. Deprecate the old binary names over
several versions, to avoid a cliff.
For what it’s worth, I think it’s good that the Mesos project
understands that the words we use have different meanings to different
people. While I am not “offended” by the current terminology I
understand that master/slave has a strong connotation towards ongoing
civil and human rights abuses, and I would seek to distance the project
from that. Continuing to make these words part of our everyday lexicon
normalizes oppressive structures, and sends a strong signal to people
outside the “blessed” group. Mesos is an industry-leading
technology, and we have a responsibility to build an inclusive and
friendly community. This is not only for the good of the product, but
for the good of the industry and all the people whose lives are effected
by it.
So, strong +1.
Brian Hicks
On Monday, June 1, 2015, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name
> than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and
> if
> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we
> don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the
> new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Elizabeth Lingg <el...@mesosphere.io>.
1. Mesos worker
2. Mesos worker
3. No
4. Documentation should first be changed
Thanks,
Elizabeth
On Monday, June 1, 2015, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Steven Borrelli <st...@aster.is>.
+1
I’d like to voice my support for removing the master/slave nomenclature. It’s our policy at aster.is that we don’t use that terminology in our projects or presentations.
Currently we use ‘leader/follower’, but we are open to using whatever terms the community comes up with. We’re also willing to contribute resources to help get this accomplished.
We also like queen/drone.
1. Mesos follower. I’m fine with worker or compute. Not a fan of minion.
2. mesos-<term>
3. We use the term ‘leader’ right now.
4. - Update internal code references & UI (have duplicate API endpoints)
- update packages & launch scripts, systemd service files, docker containers. Luckily, the mesos binary doesn’t need to be changed, just the start scripts and locations in /etc. For N versions we can update launch scripts to look for things like /etc/mesos-master config, environment files, and docker containers for backwards compatibility.
- make changes final by Mesoscon in August, add deprecation warnings
- N + x version of Mesos, remove old UI endpoints and usage of master/slave config files
Cheers,
Steven Borrelli
> On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:18 PM, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478>
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Tom Arnfeld <to...@duedil.com>.
Also +1 for CCAAT and -1 for the rename. The "minion" naming convention seems a little gimmicky to me. Master/Slave pretty accurately describes exactly what's going on in the case of Mesos. You could argue that in something like MySQL leader/follower makes more sense because it is following along... though that doesn't really apply here.
On Tuesday, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:13 pm, CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com>, wrote:
On 06/01/2015 04:18 PM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
I find political correctness rather nausiating. Folks should stop
trying to apologies for what others did, often hundreds of years ago.
I was not part of that. The advanced education system, the political
system and the current wealth control systems around the globe, are in
fact and indeed "Master-Slave" relationships; so why cleanse this notion
prematurely?
Master-slave has a rich history in the entire field of compuatational
resources and electronics. That usage has nothing to do with social
conventions and failings of the past. So, if you want to do something
effective for those of us less fortunate, why not use terms like
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and
> if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from
> the discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
Elite-taxpayer or Lawyer-citizen or Billionare-wager or
Professor-debtor ?
Something more apropo?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
The concept of a master has been around ever since (2) males or more
graced this planet (your theories of soccial evilutoin may vary but they
are irrelevant).
Commander? General ? Generalisimo? Master_Chief Warlord?
Why not get rid of the entire Apache evironment why you are at it?
This line of reasoning is nothing but *STUPID* You cannot errase
the history of the warrior existence of mankind. Nor should any today
apologize for historical convention. WE did not commit any bad deeds
before we were born, so just get over it!
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
This is the sadest thread I have ever read.
James
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com>.
On 06/02/2015 11:30 AM, Alexander Gallego wrote:
> 1. mesos-worker
> 2. mesos-worker
Currently, my (limited) understanding of the codebase for mesos, is that
slave does not have any autonomy, is 100% controlled by the Master,
hence the clear nomenclature of Master-Slave. If we are to migrate to
'mesos-worker' this implies that the worker has 'some standing' some
rights? The worker can leave the mesos and move on (attach) to another
supervisor? Actually I like this concept, since mesos is not likely to
be the only "master" in a data center, maybe we need to begin thinking
about node (migration) to other "masters" in a heterogeneous data-center
? Ah! Eureka now I see what is really going on; mesos leadership is
preparing for other "masters" to migrate node-worker hardware to other
cluster codes, in the spirit of heterogeneous, politically_correct,
cluster compuations? I see, we would not want to offend any other
software development team; after all
opensource is opensource......
Also, what happens to mesos clustering codes if folks decided to
experiment with self modifying codes; like the code found in stuxnet?
Are those still worker codes? Are they subservient to the "mesos"
after they are instantiated? We have the family of self-modifying codes
to contend with in the future; surely they are going to find a path
to these clusters, whether the developers like it or not.
How shall the naming classifications match reality in the future? I'd
suggest some thought as to where mesos is heading, as changes in
nomenclature and diversions, no matter how well-intended, from
established jargon can cause loads of unforeseen problems if not lead to
obscurity. For example when somebody has work in a multi-processor
hardware development group, you either have master-slave relationships,
voter, or some non-sensical, if not exotic, nomenclature that does not
withstand the ravages of competing codes over time. A historical review
might be in order for parallel efforts; look at how divergent naming
schemes have not survived...... I doubt seriously this is the first
venture into finding a more accurate and alternative naming scheme. A
less accurate scheme; surely many exist, as we've seen a few in this thread.
Change the names as you like. But, but be mindful that your new
nomenclature is sensical and exudes forethought of the futuristic
feature sets to be found in parallel processing, both hardware and software.
hth,
James
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Alexander Gallego <ag...@concord.io>.
1. mesos-worker
2. mesos-worker
3. yes
4. carefully
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:15 PM, CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 04:18 PM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
>
>> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
>> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>>
>
> I find political correctness rather nausiating. Folks should stop
> trying to apologies for what others did, often hundreds of years ago.
> I was not part of that. The advanced education system, the political
> system and the current wealth control systems around the globe, are in fact
> and indeed "Master-Slave" relationships; so why cleanse this notion
> prematurely?
>
>
> Master-slave has a rich history in the entire field of compuatational
> resources and electronics. That usage has nothing to do with social
> conventions and failings of the past. So, if you want to do something
> effective for those of us less fortunate, why not use terms like
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and
>> if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from
>> the discussion and call for a VOTE.
>> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
>> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
>> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
>>
> Elite-taxpayer or Lawyer-citizen or Billionare-wager or
> Professor-debtor ?
>
> Something more apropo?
>
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>>
>
> The concept of a master has been around ever since (2) males or more
> graced this planet (your theories of soccial evilutoin may vary but they
> are irrelevant).
>
> Commander? General ? Generalisimo? Master_Chief Warlord?
>
> Why not get rid of the entire Apache evironment why you are at it?
> This line of reasoning is nothing but *STUPID* You cannot errase
> the history of the warrior existence of mankind. Nor should any today
> apologize for historical convention. WE did not commit any bad deeds
> before we were born, so just get over it!
>
>
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
>> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
>> name(s).
>> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>>
>> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Adam-
>>
>> P.S. My personal thoughts:
>> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
>> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
>> 3. No
>> 4. Carefully
>>
>
>
> This is the sadest thread I have ever read.
>
> James
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Sharma Podila <sp...@netflix.com>.
My $0.02...
The use of the word "Worker" is confusing. This entity has several
responsibilities, including, maintaining connectivity to master, managing
and monitoring the executors, sending status updates, and other future
endeavors such as autonomously determining actions for resource
oversubscriptions, etc. That is, the entity (so far called the slave) has
some intelligence and autonomous behavior associated with it.
The word "Worker", in my mind, gives it the attribute of performing a
single purpose action of executing something for the Master. Where as, the
word "agent" attributes a bit more intelligence to it, one of which is to
execute executors/tasks/containers. Worker has more similarities to
executor than to a Mesos slave.
So, here's my suggestion:
1. Mesos Agent (node)
2. Mesos Agent (daemon/process)
3. No
4. Via deprecation, documentation, etc.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Connor Doyle <co...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> James, I'll just say one thing:
>
> The proposed change is for the benefit of those who _do_ have a problem
> with the current name.
>
> Of course you are free from having to empathize, but why block the change
> if there is support?
> Finding out if there is wider support is the purpose of this thread.
>
> --
> Connor
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 2015, at 11:43, CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 06/02/2015 11:58 AM, craig mcmillan wrote:
> >> not being from a slavery oppressed minority i'm not in a position to
> >> offer an opinion on the experience of the use of 'slave' in CS
> >> terminology, and the definition of 'minion' doesn't seem overly more
> >> empowering
> >>
> >> however :
> >>
> >> dom / sub
> >>
> >> is more fun and a little bit cheeky
> >>
> >> :c
> >
> >
> > Ah. The nightclub scene is more salient; so Berlin is your favourite
> city? What if the roles reverse; how does that map to mesos, clustering or
> parallel efforts? For humorous reasons, I like
> > Mommy --> daddy so as to promote females to participate in mesos?
> >
> >
> >
> > I say all of this, as my grandfather, who later on in life became
> > a pharmacist and drug store owner, was a slave in his youth. I find it
> none offense. The only thing I find offense is those not willing to fight
> to overcome their circumstances. As an over educated person, I find the
> entire historical education experienced much more offending than something
> that has existed in every culture that is more than a few hundred years
> old. For me, obtaining education and then social status, from elites, is an
> ugly process. Now, here in the USA, we
> > have graduates in debt up to there eyes and often no jobs. You want to
> address a social-ill, why not just get rid of "tenure" and put the
> pedantics on the same hire-fire master-slave relationship graduates are
> under? The past is just that; the past, learn from it and move on. Take
> > actions about TODAY and tomorrow. Stop wallowing in the self pitty of
> what other did hundreds or thousands of years ago!
> >
> >
> > WE still have wage-slaves, sex-slaves and many forms of human traffic
> that are or are very, very close to slavery. Try to show your independence,
> as part of a military collective; commander-slave.
> >
> > How about elite-slave? politician-slave? Ivy_league--community_college
> > for names?
> >
> >
> > As a solution, why don't we make these relationships 'user defined
> variables'? Surely that would be great fun and prepare us for supporting
> languages such as Haskell in a fun and ambitious function
> > sort of way? [1]
> >
> >
> >
> > James
> >
> > [1]
> http://lesswrong.com/lw/k1o/botworld_a_cellular_automaton_for_studying/
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Jeff Schroeder <je...@computer.org>.
For the sake of hearing out all sides, who is offended by this name? For
those who are offended, what would be less offensive names?
If slave is taken out of context, minion seems just as easy to be taken out
of context. I'd really love to hear from someone actually offended what we
can do to make the project less so.
On Tuesday, June 2, 2015, Connor Doyle <co...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> James, I'll just say one thing:
>
> The proposed change is for the benefit of those who _do_ have a problem
> with the current name.
>
> Of course you are free from having to empathize, but why block the change
> if there is support?
> Finding out if there is wider support is the purpose of this thread.
>
> --
> Connor
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 2015, at 11:43, CCAAT <ccaat@tampabay.rr.com <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 06/02/2015 11:58 AM, craig mcmillan wrote:
> >> not being from a slavery oppressed minority i'm not in a position to
> >> offer an opinion on the experience of the use of 'slave' in CS
> >> terminology, and the definition of 'minion' doesn't seem overly more
> >> empowering
> >>
> >> however :
> >>
> >> dom / sub
> >>
> >> is more fun and a little bit cheeky
> >>
> >> :c
> >
> >
> > Ah. The nightclub scene is more salient; so Berlin is your favourite
> city? What if the roles reverse; how does that map to mesos, clustering or
> parallel efforts? For humorous reasons, I like
> > Mommy --> daddy so as to promote females to participate in mesos?
> >
> >
> >
> > I say all of this, as my grandfather, who later on in life became
> > a pharmacist and drug store owner, was a slave in his youth. I find it
> none offense. The only thing I find offense is those not willing to fight
> to overcome their circumstances. As an over educated person, I find the
> entire historical education experienced much more offending than something
> that has existed in every culture that is more than a few hundred years
> old. For me, obtaining education and then social status, from elites, is an
> ugly process. Now, here in the USA, we
> > have graduates in debt up to there eyes and often no jobs. You want to
> address a social-ill, why not just get rid of "tenure" and put the
> pedantics on the same hire-fire master-slave relationship graduates are
> under? The past is just that; the past, learn from it and move on. Take
> > actions about TODAY and tomorrow. Stop wallowing in the self pitty of
> what other did hundreds or thousands of years ago!
> >
> >
> > WE still have wage-slaves, sex-slaves and many forms of human traffic
> that are or are very, very close to slavery. Try to show your independence,
> as part of a military collective; commander-slave.
> >
> > How about elite-slave? politician-slave? Ivy_league--community_college
> > for names?
> >
> >
> > As a solution, why don't we make these relationships 'user defined
> variables'? Surely that would be great fun and prepare us for supporting
> languages such as Haskell in a fun and ambitious function
> > sort of way? [1]
> >
> >
> >
> > James
> >
> > [1]
> http://lesswrong.com/lw/k1o/botworld_a_cellular_automaton_for_studying/
> >
>
>
--
Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Steven Schlansker <ss...@opentable.com>.
I'm going to stay out of the argument over whether it's an appropriate name or not, but there is definitely a very serious cost to changing it. I'm just imagining what I will have to go through to upgrade my existing clusters. Each one will have to go through a tricky upgrade; removing all the old names, adding the new ones, making sure we coordinate the rollout. Additionally we will have to go through all our monitoring scripts, watchdogs, etc to replace references with the new names.
Probably a couple of weeks worth of work just for our relatively small organization. All in the name of political correctness.
On Jun 2, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Connor Doyle <co...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> James, I'll just say one thing:
>
> The proposed change is for the benefit of those who _do_ have a problem with the current name.
>
> Of course you are free from having to empathize, but why block the change if there is support?
> Finding out if there is wider support is the purpose of this thread.
>
> --
> Connor
>
>
>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 11:43, CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/02/2015 11:58 AM, craig mcmillan wrote:
>>> not being from a slavery oppressed minority i'm not in a position to
>>> offer an opinion on the experience of the use of 'slave' in CS
>>> terminology, and the definition of 'minion' doesn't seem overly more
>>> empowering
>>>
>>> however :
>>>
>>> dom / sub
>>>
>>> is more fun and a little bit cheeky
>>>
>>> :c
>>
>>
>> Ah. The nightclub scene is more salient; so Berlin is your favourite city? What if the roles reverse; how does that map to mesos, clustering or parallel efforts? For humorous reasons, I like
>> Mommy --> daddy so as to promote females to participate in mesos?
>>
>>
>>
>> I say all of this, as my grandfather, who later on in life became
>> a pharmacist and drug store owner, was a slave in his youth. I find it none offense. The only thing I find offense is those not willing to fight to overcome their circumstances. As an over educated person, I find the entire historical education experienced much more offending than something that has existed in every culture that is more than a few hundred years old. For me, obtaining education and then social status, from elites, is an ugly process. Now, here in the USA, we
>> have graduates in debt up to there eyes and often no jobs. You want to address a social-ill, why not just get rid of "tenure" and put the pedantics on the same hire-fire master-slave relationship graduates are under? The past is just that; the past, learn from it and move on. Take
>> actions about TODAY and tomorrow. Stop wallowing in the self pitty of what other did hundreds or thousands of years ago!
>>
>>
>> WE still have wage-slaves, sex-slaves and many forms of human traffic that are or are very, very close to slavery. Try to show your independence, as part of a military collective; commander-slave.
>>
>> How about elite-slave? politician-slave? Ivy_league--community_college
>> for names?
>>
>>
>> As a solution, why don't we make these relationships 'user defined variables'? Surely that would be great fun and prepare us for supporting languages such as Haskell in a fun and ambitious function
>> sort of way? [1]
>>
>>
>>
>> James
>>
>> [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/k1o/botworld_a_cellular_automaton_for_studying/
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Connor Doyle <co...@mesosphere.io>.
James, I'll just say one thing:
The proposed change is for the benefit of those who _do_ have a problem with the current name.
Of course you are free from having to empathize, but why block the change if there is support?
Finding out if there is wider support is the purpose of this thread.
--
Connor
> On Jun 2, 2015, at 11:43, CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/02/2015 11:58 AM, craig mcmillan wrote:
>> not being from a slavery oppressed minority i'm not in a position to
>> offer an opinion on the experience of the use of 'slave' in CS
>> terminology, and the definition of 'minion' doesn't seem overly more
>> empowering
>>
>> however :
>>
>> dom / sub
>>
>> is more fun and a little bit cheeky
>>
>> :c
>
>
> Ah. The nightclub scene is more salient; so Berlin is your favourite city? What if the roles reverse; how does that map to mesos, clustering or parallel efforts? For humorous reasons, I like
> Mommy --> daddy so as to promote females to participate in mesos?
>
>
>
> I say all of this, as my grandfather, who later on in life became
> a pharmacist and drug store owner, was a slave in his youth. I find it none offense. The only thing I find offense is those not willing to fight to overcome their circumstances. As an over educated person, I find the entire historical education experienced much more offending than something that has existed in every culture that is more than a few hundred years old. For me, obtaining education and then social status, from elites, is an ugly process. Now, here in the USA, we
> have graduates in debt up to there eyes and often no jobs. You want to address a social-ill, why not just get rid of "tenure" and put the pedantics on the same hire-fire master-slave relationship graduates are under? The past is just that; the past, learn from it and move on. Take
> actions about TODAY and tomorrow. Stop wallowing in the self pitty of what other did hundreds or thousands of years ago!
>
>
> WE still have wage-slaves, sex-slaves and many forms of human traffic that are or are very, very close to slavery. Try to show your independence, as part of a military collective; commander-slave.
>
> How about elite-slave? politician-slave? Ivy_league--community_college
> for names?
>
>
> As a solution, why don't we make these relationships 'user defined variables'? Surely that would be great fun and prepare us for supporting languages such as Haskell in a fun and ambitious function
> sort of way? [1]
>
>
>
> James
>
> [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/k1o/botworld_a_cellular_automaton_for_studying/
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com>.
On 06/02/2015 11:58 AM, craig mcmillan wrote:
> not being from a slavery oppressed minority i'm not in a position to
> offer an opinion on the experience of the use of 'slave' in CS
> terminology, and the definition of 'minion' doesn't seem overly more
> empowering
>
> however :
>
> dom / sub
>
> is more fun and a little bit cheeky
>
> :c
Ah. The nightclub scene is more salient; so Berlin is your favourite
city? What if the roles reverse; how does that map to mesos, clustering
or parallel efforts? For humorous reasons, I like
Mommy --> daddy so as to promote females to participate in mesos?
I say all of this, as my grandfather, who later on in life became
a pharmacist and drug store owner, was a slave in his youth. I find it
none offense. The only thing I find offense is those not willing to
fight to overcome their circumstances. As an over educated person, I
find the entire historical education experienced much more offending
than something that has existed in every culture that is more than a few
hundred years old. For me, obtaining education and then social status,
from elites, is an ugly process. Now, here in the USA, we
have graduates in debt up to there eyes and often no jobs. You want to
address a social-ill, why not just get rid of "tenure" and put the
pedantics on the same hire-fire master-slave relationship graduates are
under? The past is just that; the past, learn from it and move on. Take
actions about TODAY and tomorrow. Stop wallowing in the self pitty of
what other did hundreds or thousands of years ago!
WE still have wage-slaves, sex-slaves and many forms of human traffic
that are or are very, very close to slavery. Try to show your
independence, as part of a military collective; commander-slave.
How about elite-slave? politician-slave? Ivy_league--community_college
for names?
As a solution, why don't we make these relationships 'user defined
variables'? Surely that would be great fun and prepare us for
supporting languages such as Haskell in a fun and ambitious function
sort of way? [1]
James
[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/k1o/botworld_a_cellular_automaton_for_studying/
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by craig mcmillan <mc...@gmail.com>.
not being from a slavery oppressed minority i'm not in a position to
offer an opinion on the experience of the use of 'slave' in CS
terminology, and the definition of 'minion' doesn't seem overly more
empowering
however :
dom / sub
is more fun and a little bit cheeky
:c
On 2 Jun 2015, at 17:44, Brian Devins wrote:
> +1 for CCAAT also. master-slave is well established in CS. I am
> intrigued
> by minion though
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Nikolay Borodachev <nb...@adobe.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 for CCAAT's post
>> -1 for renaming Mesos Slave
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CCAAT [mailto:ccaat@tampabay.rr.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 12:16 PM
>> To: user@mesos.apache.org
>> Cc: ccaat@tampabay.rr.com
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>>
>> On 06/01/2015 04:18 PM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
>>> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name
>>> than "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>>
>> I find political correctness rather nausiating. Folks should stop
>> trying
>> to apologies for what others did, often hundreds of years ago.
>> I was not part of that. The advanced education system, the political
>> system and the current wealth control systems around the globe, are
>> in fact
>> and indeed "Master-Slave" relationships; so why cleanse this notion
>> prematurely?
>>
>>
>> Master-slave has a rich history in the entire field of compuatational
>> resources and electronics. That usage has nothing to do with social
>> conventions and failings of the past. So, if you want to do something
>> effective for those of us less fortunate, why not use terms like
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week,
>>> and
>>> if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal
>>> from
>>> the discussion and call for a VOTE.
>>> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
>>> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
>>> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the
>>> same)?
>> Elite-taxpayer or Lawyer-citizen or Billionare-wager or
>> Professor-debtor ?
>>
>> Something more apropo?
>>
>>> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>>
>> The concept of a master has been around ever since (2) males or more
>> graced this planet (your theories of soccial evilutoin may vary but
>> they
>> are irrelevant).
>>
>> Commander? General ? Generalisimo? Master_Chief Warlord?
>>
>> Why not get rid of the entire Apache evironment why you are at it?
>> This line of reasoning is nothing but *STUPID* You cannot errase
>> the history of the warrior existence of mankind. Nor should any today
>> apologize for historical convention. WE did not commit any bad deeds
>> before we were born, so just get over it!
>>
>>
>>
>>> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we
>>> don't
>>> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the
>>> new
>>> name(s).
>>> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>>>
>>> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> -Adam-
>>>
>>> P.S. My personal thoughts:
>>> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
>>> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
>>> 3. No
>>> 4. Carefully
>>
>>
>> This is the sadest thread I have ever read.
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Brian Devins <ba...@gmail.com>.
+1 for CCAAT also. master-slave is well established in CS. I am intrigued
by minion though
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Nikolay Borodachev <nb...@adobe.com>
wrote:
> +1 for CCAAT's post
> -1 for renaming Mesos Slave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCAAT [mailto:ccaat@tampabay.rr.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 12:16 PM
> To: user@mesos.apache.org
> Cc: ccaat@tampabay.rr.com
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>
> On 06/01/2015 04:18 PM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
> > There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name
> > than "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I find political correctness rather nausiating. Folks should stop trying
> to apologies for what others did, often hundreds of years ago.
> I was not part of that. The advanced education system, the political
> system and the current wealth control systems around the globe, are in fact
> and indeed "Master-Slave" relationships; so why cleanse this notion
> prematurely?
>
>
> Master-slave has a rich history in the entire field of compuatational
> resources and electronics. That usage has nothing to do with social
> conventions and failings of the past. So, if you want to do something
> effective for those of us less fortunate, why not use terms like
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and
> > if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from
> > the discussion and call for a VOTE.
> > Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> > 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> > 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> Elite-taxpayer or Lawyer-citizen or Billionare-wager or
> Professor-debtor ?
>
> Something more apropo?
>
> > 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> The concept of a master has been around ever since (2) males or more
> graced this planet (your theories of soccial evilutoin may vary but they
> are irrelevant).
>
> Commander? General ? Generalisimo? Master_Chief Warlord?
>
> Why not get rid of the entire Apache evironment why you are at it?
> This line of reasoning is nothing but *STUPID* You cannot errase
> the history of the warrior existence of mankind. Nor should any today
> apologize for historical convention. WE did not commit any bad deeds
> before we were born, so just get over it!
>
>
>
> > Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> > necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> > name(s).
> > 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
> >
> > Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -Adam-
> >
> > P.S. My personal thoughts:
> > 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> > 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> > 3. No
> > 4. Carefully
>
>
> This is the sadest thread I have ever read.
>
> James
>
>
>
RE: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Nikolay Borodachev <nb...@adobe.com>.
+1 for CCAAT's post
-1 for renaming Mesos Slave
-----Original Message-----
From: CCAAT [mailto:ccaat@tampabay.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 12:16 PM
To: user@mesos.apache.org
Cc: ccaat@tampabay.rr.com
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
On 06/01/2015 04:18 PM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name
> than "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
I find political correctness rather nausiating. Folks should stop trying to apologies for what others did, often hundreds of years ago.
I was not part of that. The advanced education system, the political system and the current wealth control systems around the globe, are in fact and indeed "Master-Slave" relationships; so why cleanse this notion prematurely?
Master-slave has a rich history in the entire field of compuatational resources and electronics. That usage has nothing to do with social conventions and failings of the past. So, if you want to do something effective for those of us less fortunate, why not use terms like
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and
> if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from
> the discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
Elite-taxpayer or Lawyer-citizen or Billionare-wager or
Professor-debtor ?
Something more apropo?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
The concept of a master has been around ever since (2) males or more
graced this planet (your theories of soccial evilutoin may vary but they
are irrelevant).
Commander? General ? Generalisimo? Master_Chief Warlord?
Why not get rid of the entire Apache evironment why you are at it?
This line of reasoning is nothing but *STUPID* You cannot errase
the history of the warrior existence of mankind. Nor should any today
apologize for historical convention. WE did not commit any bad deeds
before we were born, so just get over it!
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
This is the sadest thread I have ever read.
James
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by CCAAT <cc...@tampabay.rr.com>.
On 06/01/2015 04:18 PM, Adam Bordelon wrote:
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
I find political correctness rather nausiating. Folks should stop
trying to apologies for what others did, often hundreds of years ago.
I was not part of that. The advanced education system, the political
system and the current wealth control systems around the globe, are in
fact and indeed "Master-Slave" relationships; so why cleanse this notion
prematurely?
Master-slave has a rich history in the entire field of compuatational
resources and electronics. That usage has nothing to do with social
conventions and failings of the past. So, if you want to do something
effective for those of us less fortunate, why not use terms like
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and
> if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from
> the discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
Elite-taxpayer or Lawyer-citizen or Billionare-wager or
Professor-debtor ?
Something more apropo?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
The concept of a master has been around ever since (2) males or more
graced this planet (your theories of soccial evilutoin may vary but they
are irrelevant).
Commander? General ? Generalisimo? Master_Chief Warlord?
Why not get rid of the entire Apache evironment why you are at it?
This line of reasoning is nothing but *STUPID* You cannot errase
the history of the warrior existence of mankind. Nor should any today
apologize for historical convention. WE did not commit any bad deeds
before we were born, so just get over it!
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
This is the sadest thread I have ever read.
James
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
Adam,
If a vote is called out, how do we decide if it passes or not. Will that be
the same of voting for a release (i.e., PMC member can veto it)?
I would imagine that some PMC members might want to express some negative
feedbacks on this, but certainly do not want to veto it. How do we deal
with this situation?
As already pointed out in the thread, this name change requires large
amount of work on changing the internal config files, monitoring stack and
a complicated rolling out procedure.
Because of that, I would like to propose that we also *count votes by
organization* and take that into account. We probably don't want to pass a
vote if a majority of the organizations do not want it, right? We'll decide
each organization's +1/-1 by looking at votes from their employees (e.g.,
by majority).
If one does not have an organization associated with, his/her vote will be
put into a separate pool. If an organization wants to stay anonymous, just
use a label (but make sure to use the same label if there are multiple
votes from the same organization).
How does that sound?
- Jie
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Connor Doyle <co...@mesosphere.io>.
+1
1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
2. Mesos Worker [process]
3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the "official" name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first step.
--
Connor
> On Jun 1, 2015, at 14:18, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Elizabeth Lingg <el...@mesosphere.io>.
1. Mesos worker
2. Mesos worker
3. No
4. Documentation should first be changed
Thanks,
Elizabeth
On Monday, June 1, 2015, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Zhipeng Huang <zh...@gmail.com>.
Not changing might be the better choice. If indeed a change in the name is
needed, Mesos Worker/Master sounds fine.
@Jeff Schroeder +1
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Jeff Schroeder <je...@computer.org>
wrote:
> My (very personal) thought here is that we should ensure a vocal minority
> is not changing things for the sake of changing it. What is the industry
> standard here? Are potential users actually refusing to use mesos due to
> the terminology which is unfortunately very prevalent in the client/server
> world? If so, how many? Does this serve the mesos and greater Apache
> community goals?
>
> Note: I'm absolutely not trying to start a flame war, but these are
> questions we as a community should answer. That specific PR causes a lot of
> bike shedding in the Django community which (if we are lucky) might be
> prevented.
>
>
> On Monday, June 1, 2015, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
>> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
>> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>>
>> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
>> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
>> discussion and call for a VOTE.
>> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
>> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
>> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
>> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>>
>> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
>> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
>> name(s).
>> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>>
>> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Adam-
>>
>> P.S. My personal thoughts:
>> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
>> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
>> 3. No
>> 4. Carefully
>>
>
>
> --
> Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Vojin Urosevic <vu...@linuxusers.com>.
@Jeff Schroeder +1
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Jeff Schroeder <je...@computer.org>
wrote:
> My (very personal) thought here is that we should ensure a vocal minority
> is not changing things for the sake of changing it. What is the industry
> standard here? Are potential users actually refusing to use mesos due to
> the terminology which is unfortunately very prevalent in the client/server
> world? If so, how many? Does this serve the mesos and greater Apache
> community goals?
>
> Note: I'm absolutely not trying to start a flame war, but these are
> questions we as a community should answer. That specific PR causes a lot of
> bike shedding in the Django community which (if we are lucky) might be
> prevented.
>
>
> On Monday, June 1, 2015, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
>> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
>> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>>
>> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
>> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
>> discussion and call for a VOTE.
>> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
>> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
>> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
>> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>>
>> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
>> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
>> name(s).
>> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>>
>> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Adam-
>>
>> P.S. My personal thoughts:
>> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
>> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
>> 3. No
>> 4. Carefully
>>
>
>
> --
> Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Jeff Schroeder <je...@computer.org>.
My (very personal) thought here is that we should ensure a vocal minority
is not changing things for the sake of changing it. What is the industry
standard here? Are potential users actually refusing to use mesos due to
the terminology which is unfortunately very prevalent in the client/server
world? If so, how many? Does this serve the mesos and greater Apache
community goals?
Note: I'm absolutely not trying to start a flame war, but these are
questions we as a community should answer. That specific PR causes a lot of
bike shedding in the Django community which (if we are lucky) might be
prevented.
On Monday, June 1, 2015, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
>
--
Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by "Heller, Chris" <ch...@akamai.com>.
1. Mesos Minion
2. mesos-minion
3. Gru (haha just kidding)
4. Docs, and symlink
From: Scott Rankin <sr...@motus.com>
Reply-To: User Mailing List Apache Mesos <us...@mesos.apache.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 9:39 AM
To: User Mailing List Apache Mesos <us...@mesos.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
+1
1. Mesos Worker
2. mesos-worker
3. No
4. Change the docs as soon as the new command is available, perhaps provide
a symlink for a while.
From: Adam Bordelon
Reply-To: "user@mesos.apache.org"
Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 5:18 PM
To: dev, "user@mesos.apache.org"
Subject: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
"Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.apache.org_jira
_browse_MESOS-2D1478&d=AwMGaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=ylcFa5bBSUyTQqbx1Aq
z47ec5BJJc7uk0YQ4EQKh-DY&m=NnfQqphMHerjDZDsi3EG9kS9vFpyEYRTeGJV1LU3mxI&s=ZoB
fXhQe_o0m2U_Nc-UdljJ0_qbZ_EXY47n9nH6JmpA&e=>
I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if we
cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
discussion and call for a VOTE.
Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
name(s).
4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
Thanks!
-Adam-
P.S. My personal thoughts:
1. Mesos Worker [Node]
2. Mesos Worker or Agent
3. No
4. Carefully
This email message contains information that Motus, LLC considers
confidential and/or proprietary, or may later designate as confidential and
proprietary. It is intended only for use of the individual or entity named
above and should not be forwarded to any other persons or entities without
the express consent of Motus, LLC, nor should it be used for any purpose
other than in the course of any potential or actual business relationship
with Motus, LLC. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy the original message.
Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written
advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains
advice relating to a Federal tax issue, unless expressly stated otherwise
the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by
the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding Federal tax
penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any
transaction or matter discussed herein.
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by David Greenberg <ds...@gmail.com>.
I feel like calling the slave a worker is confusing, since many
applications call their executors workers. I think that minion is suitably
exotic as to avoid confusion.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:56 AM Pradeep Kiruvale <pr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> 1.Mesos Resource-Agent
> 2.mesos resource-Agent
> 3.Mesos Resource-Scheduler
> 4.Eventually
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Pradeep
>
>
> On 2 June 2015 at 15:39, Scott Rankin <sr...@motus.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> 1. Mesos Worker
>> 2. mesos-worker
>> 3. No
>> 4. Change the docs as soon as the new command is available, perhaps
>> provide a symlink for a while.
>>
>>
>> From: Adam Bordelon
>> Reply-To: "user@mesos.apache.org"
>> Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 5:18 PM
>> To: dev, "user@mesos.apache.org"
>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>>
>> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name
>> than "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>>
>> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
>> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
>> discussion and call for a VOTE.
>> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
>> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
>> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
>> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>>
>> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
>> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
>> name(s).
>> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>>
>> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Adam-
>>
>> P.S. My personal thoughts:
>> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
>> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
>> 3. No
>> 4. Carefully
>>
>> This email message contains information that Motus, LLC considers
>> confidential and/or proprietary, or may later designate as confidential and
>> proprietary. It is intended only for use of the individual or entity named
>> above and should not be forwarded to any other persons or entities without
>> the express consent of Motus, LLC, nor should it be used for any purpose
>> other than in the course of any potential or actual business relationship
>> with Motus, LLC. If the reader of this message is not the intended
>> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the
>> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
>> distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
>> you have received this communication in error, please notify sender
>> immediately and destroy the original message.
>>
>> Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of
>> written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message
>> contains advice relating to a Federal tax issue, unless expressly stated
>> otherwise the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot
>> be used by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding
>> Federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or
>> marketing of any transaction or matter discussed herein.
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Pradeep Kiruvale <pr...@gmail.com>.
1.Mesos Resource-Agent
2.mesos resource-Agent
3.Mesos Resource-Scheduler
4.Eventually
Thanks & Regards,
Pradeep
On 2 June 2015 at 15:39, Scott Rankin <sr...@motus.com> wrote:
> +1
>
>
> 1. Mesos Worker
> 2. mesos-worker
> 3. No
> 4. Change the docs as soon as the new command is available, perhaps
> provide a symlink for a while.
>
>
> From: Adam Bordelon
> Reply-To: "user@mesos.apache.org"
> Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 5:18 PM
> To: dev, "user@mesos.apache.org"
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
>
> This email message contains information that Motus, LLC considers
> confidential and/or proprietary, or may later designate as confidential and
> proprietary. It is intended only for use of the individual or entity named
> above and should not be forwarded to any other persons or entities without
> the express consent of Motus, LLC, nor should it be used for any purpose
> other than in the course of any potential or actual business relationship
> with Motus, LLC. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
> you have received this communication in error, please notify sender
> immediately and destroy the original message.
>
> Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written
> advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains
> advice relating to a Federal tax issue, unless expressly stated otherwise
> the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by
> the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding Federal
> tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of
> any transaction or matter discussed herein.
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Scott Rankin <sr...@motus.com>.
+1
1. Mesos Worker
2. mesos-worker
3. No
4. Change the docs as soon as the new command is available, perhaps provide a symlink for a while.
From: Adam Bordelon
Reply-To: "user@mesos.apache.org<ma...@mesos.apache.org>"
Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 5:18 PM
To: dev, "user@mesos.apache.org<ma...@mesos.apache.org>"
Subject: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the discussion and call for a VOTE.
Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new name(s).
4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
Thanks!
-Adam-
P.S. My personal thoughts:
1. Mesos Worker [Node]
2. Mesos Worker or Agent
3. No
4. Carefully
This email message contains information that Motus, LLC considers confidential and/or proprietary, or may later designate as confidential and proprietary. It is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above and should not be forwarded to any other persons or entities without the express consent of Motus, LLC, nor should it be used for any purpose other than in the course of any potential or actual business relationship with Motus, LLC. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy the original message.
Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a Federal tax issue, unless expressly stated otherwise the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding Federal tax penalties, and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter discussed herein.
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Jeff Schroeder <je...@computer.org>.
My (very personal) thought here is that we should ensure a vocal minority
is not changing things for the sake of changing it. What is the industry
standard here? Are potential users actually refusing to use mesos due to
the terminology which is unfortunately very prevalent in the client/server
world? If so, how many? Does this serve the mesos and greater Apache
community goals?
Note: I'm absolutely not trying to start a flame war, but these are
questions we as a community should answer. That specific PR causes a lot of
bike shedding in the Django community which (if we are lucky) might be
prevented.
On Monday, June 1, 2015, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
>
--
Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
Posted by Benjamin Staffin <be...@folsomlabs.com>.
1. Mesos Worker (or just Mesos node)
2. Mesos Worker
3. No, but if we do then Leader or Director or Controller
4. Deprecation cycle, documentation, etc. Provide aliases for a release or
two.
Thanks for raising this topic; it's been on my mind for a while.
As for why I think this matters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon <ad...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
>