You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by "Tetreault, Lucas" <te...@amazon.com.INVALID> on 2022/05/06 06:26:09 UTC
[VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Hey folks,
I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to call for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled out.
If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco, Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.: active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options will support having a status layered on top.
Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please provide specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
[ ] Leader/Follower
[ ] Primary/Backup
[1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
[2] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
[4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
[5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
[6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
[7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
Lucas Tétreault
Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Iliya Grushevskiy <il...@gmail.com>.
+1 for active/passive - very often is used in conversation
Regards
Iliya Grushevskiy
> 6 мая 2022 г., в 09:26, Tetreault, Lucas <te...@amazon.com.INVALID> написал(а):
>
> Hey folks,
>
> I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to call for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
>
>
> A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled out.
>
>
>
> If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco, Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
>
>
>
> From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.: active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options will support having a status layered on top.
>
>
>
> Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please provide specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
>
> [ ] Leader/Follower
>
> [ ] Primary/Backup
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
>
> [2] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
>
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>
> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
>
> [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
>
> Lucas Tétreault
> Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Yup, it's already what we discussed together for ActiveMQ (5.x):
active/passive is the most accurate to me.
+1
Thanks for helping there !
Regards
JB
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:40 PM Étienne Hossack <ac...@hossack.me> wrote:
>
> Given I'm still hoping to drive the PRs for AMQ-8317, and AMQ-7514 through I apologize for not chiming in earlier due to busyness.
>
> But echoing the consensus as well for posterity:
> > Nouns: Primary/Backup
> > Adjectives: Active/Passive
>
> Such that for AMQ5 we'd be starting generally to use the replacement for M/S as Active Passive.
>
> --
> Étienne
> he/him/his
>
> On Sat, 7 May 2022, at 10:13 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > The purpose is not really a formal vote (as for a release for instance).
> > It's more to get consensus.
> >
> > I think we have a consensus.
> >
> > +1 to proceed now :)
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > Le dim. 8 mai 2022 à 05:14, Tetreault, Lucas <te...@amazon.com.invalid>
> > a écrit :
> >
> >> Here is the summary of all the votes:
> >> [+1,1,-1,-1000,-1,-1] Leader/Follower
> >> [-1,+1,+1,+1,+1,+1,-1,+1,+1] Primary/Backup
> >> [+1, +1, +1,+1] Active/Passive
> >> [+1] Active/Standby
> >> [+1] capitalist/worker
> >>
> >> It seems like we have consensus on Primary/Backup and Active/Passive as
> >> per Justin's suggestion:
> >> Nouns: Primary/Backup
> >> Adjectives: Active/Passive
> >>
> >> Does this need a formal vote since I didn't get the format right or is
> >> this enough consensus that we can move forward with these terms?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Lucas
> >>
> >> On 2022-05-06, 9:20 PM, "Michael André Pearce" <
> >> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >>
> >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
> >> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
> >> know the content is safe.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> My understanding was previous discuss thread was that we leant for for
> >> Primary/Backup
> >>
> >> What I was suggesting as it seemed it wasn’t closed out and it
> >> continues to rumble on was a binary vote per Apache voting on that as the
> >> proposal to end and close it out formally.
> >>
> >> As this is multiple choice this is not a vote thread, for it to be a
> >> vote it needs to be a proposal with a vote of +1/0/-1 on the proposal, not
> >> multi choice. Afaik.
> >>
> >> For the record I stand with the consensus from the previous discussion
> >> as no new arguments are made here.
> >>
> >> As such I would in poll
> >>
> >>
> >> [+1] primary/backup
> >> [-1] Leader/Follower
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> > On 6 May 2022, at 07:26, Tetreault, Lucas
> >> <te...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hey folks,
> >> >
> >> > I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m
> >> not a committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack
> >> that this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a
> >> final conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to
> >> call for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive
> >> terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we
> >> should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network
> >> connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was
> >> raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in
> >> November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch
> >> from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (
> >> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679,
> >> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714,
> >> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a
> >> thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to
> >> come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled
> >> out.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move
> >> forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will
> >> follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community
> >> and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and
> >> make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other
> >> Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to
> >> leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and
> >> inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco,
> >> Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA
> >> deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that
> >> active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can
> >> be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or
> >> some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt
> >> leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to
> >> replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.:
> >> active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without
> >> deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options
> >> will support having a status layered on top.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please
> >> provide specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
> >> >
> >> > [ ] Leader/Follower
> >> >
> >> > [ ] Primary/Backup
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
> >> >
> >> > [2]
> >> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
> >> >
> >> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> >> >
> >> > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
> >> >
> >> > [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> >> > [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> >> > [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
> >> >
> >> > Lucas Tétreault
> >> > Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> >> > email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Étienne Hossack <ac...@hossack.me>.
Given I'm still hoping to drive the PRs for AMQ-8317, and AMQ-7514 through I apologize for not chiming in earlier due to busyness.
But echoing the consensus as well for posterity:
> Nouns: Primary/Backup
> Adjectives: Active/Passive
Such that for AMQ5 we'd be starting generally to use the replacement for M/S as Active Passive.
--
Étienne
he/him/his
On Sat, 7 May 2022, at 10:13 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> The purpose is not really a formal vote (as for a release for instance).
> It's more to get consensus.
>
> I think we have a consensus.
>
> +1 to proceed now :)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> Le dim. 8 mai 2022 à 05:14, Tetreault, Lucas <te...@amazon.com.invalid>
> a écrit :
>
>> Here is the summary of all the votes:
>> [+1,1,-1,-1000,-1,-1] Leader/Follower
>> [-1,+1,+1,+1,+1,+1,-1,+1,+1] Primary/Backup
>> [+1, +1, +1,+1] Active/Passive
>> [+1] Active/Standby
>> [+1] capitalist/worker
>>
>> It seems like we have consensus on Primary/Backup and Active/Passive as
>> per Justin's suggestion:
>> Nouns: Primary/Backup
>> Adjectives: Active/Passive
>>
>> Does this need a formal vote since I didn't get the format right or is
>> this enough consensus that we can move forward with these terms?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lucas
>>
>> On 2022-05-06, 9:20 PM, "Michael André Pearce" <
>> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
>> know the content is safe.
>>
>>
>>
>> My understanding was previous discuss thread was that we leant for for
>> Primary/Backup
>>
>> What I was suggesting as it seemed it wasn’t closed out and it
>> continues to rumble on was a binary vote per Apache voting on that as the
>> proposal to end and close it out formally.
>>
>> As this is multiple choice this is not a vote thread, for it to be a
>> vote it needs to be a proposal with a vote of +1/0/-1 on the proposal, not
>> multi choice. Afaik.
>>
>> For the record I stand with the consensus from the previous discussion
>> as no new arguments are made here.
>>
>> As such I would in poll
>>
>>
>> [+1] primary/backup
>> [-1] Leader/Follower
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> > On 6 May 2022, at 07:26, Tetreault, Lucas
>> <te...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hey folks,
>> >
>> > I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m
>> not a committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack
>> that this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a
>> final conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to
>> call for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
>> >
>> >
>> > A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive
>> terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we
>> should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network
>> connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was
>> raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in
>> November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch
>> from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (
>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679,
>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714,
>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a
>> thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to
>> come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled
>> out.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move
>> forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will
>> follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community
>> and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and
>> make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other
>> Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to
>> leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and
>> inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco,
>> Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA
>> deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that
>> active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can
>> be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or
>> some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt
>> leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to
>> replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.:
>> active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without
>> deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options
>> will support having a status layered on top.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please
>> provide specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
>> >
>> > [ ] Leader/Follower
>> >
>> > [ ] Primary/Backup
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
>> >
>> > [2]
>> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
>> >
>> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>> >
>> > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
>> >
>> > [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
>> > [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
>> > [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
>> >
>> > Lucas Tétreault
>> > Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
>> > email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
The purpose is not really a formal vote (as for a release for instance).
It's more to get consensus.
I think we have a consensus.
+1 to proceed now :)
Regards
JB
Le dim. 8 mai 2022 à 05:14, Tetreault, Lucas <te...@amazon.com.invalid>
a écrit :
> Here is the summary of all the votes:
> [+1,1,-1,-1000,-1,-1] Leader/Follower
> [-1,+1,+1,+1,+1,+1,-1,+1,+1] Primary/Backup
> [+1, +1, +1,+1] Active/Passive
> [+1] Active/Standby
> [+1] capitalist/worker
>
> It seems like we have consensus on Primary/Backup and Active/Passive as
> per Justin's suggestion:
> Nouns: Primary/Backup
> Adjectives: Active/Passive
>
> Does this need a formal vote since I didn't get the format right or is
> this enough consensus that we can move forward with these terms?
>
> Thanks,
> Lucas
>
> On 2022-05-06, 9:20 PM, "Michael André Pearce" <
> michael.andre.pearce@me.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> My understanding was previous discuss thread was that we leant for for
> Primary/Backup
>
> What I was suggesting as it seemed it wasn’t closed out and it
> continues to rumble on was a binary vote per Apache voting on that as the
> proposal to end and close it out formally.
>
> As this is multiple choice this is not a vote thread, for it to be a
> vote it needs to be a proposal with a vote of +1/0/-1 on the proposal, not
> multi choice. Afaik.
>
> For the record I stand with the consensus from the previous discussion
> as no new arguments are made here.
>
> As such I would in poll
>
>
> [+1] primary/backup
> [-1] Leader/Follower
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 6 May 2022, at 07:26, Tetreault, Lucas
> <te...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m
> not a committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack
> that this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a
> final conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to
> call for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
> >
> >
> > A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive
> terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we
> should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network
> connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was
> raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in
> November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch
> from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679,
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714,
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a
> thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to
> come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled
> out.
> >
> >
> >
> > If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move
> forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will
> follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community
> and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and
> make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other
> Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to
> leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and
> inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco,
> Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA
> deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that
> active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can
> be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or
> some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt
> leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
> >
> >
> >
> > From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to
> replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.:
> active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without
> deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options
> will support having a status layered on top.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please
> provide specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
> >
> > [ ] Leader/Follower
> >
> > [ ] Primary/Backup
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
> >
> > [2]
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
> >
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> >
> > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
> >
> > [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> > [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> > [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
> >
> > Lucas Tétreault
> > Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> > email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by "Tetreault, Lucas" <te...@amazon.com.INVALID>.
Here is the summary of all the votes:
[+1,1,-1,-1000,-1,-1] Leader/Follower
[-1,+1,+1,+1,+1,+1,-1,+1,+1] Primary/Backup
[+1, +1, +1,+1] Active/Passive
[+1] Active/Standby
[+1] capitalist/worker
It seems like we have consensus on Primary/Backup and Active/Passive as per Justin's suggestion:
Nouns: Primary/Backup
Adjectives: Active/Passive
Does this need a formal vote since I didn't get the format right or is this enough consensus that we can move forward with these terms?
Thanks,
Lucas
On 2022-05-06, 9:20 PM, "Michael André Pearce" <mi...@me.com.INVALID> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
My understanding was previous discuss thread was that we leant for for Primary/Backup
What I was suggesting as it seemed it wasn’t closed out and it continues to rumble on was a binary vote per Apache voting on that as the proposal to end and close it out formally.
As this is multiple choice this is not a vote thread, for it to be a vote it needs to be a proposal with a vote of +1/0/-1 on the proposal, not multi choice. Afaik.
For the record I stand with the consensus from the previous discussion as no new arguments are made here.
As such I would in poll
[+1] primary/backup
[-1] Leader/Follower
Sent from my iPad
> On 6 May 2022, at 07:26, Tetreault, Lucas <te...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Hey folks,
>
> I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to call for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
>
>
> A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled out.
>
>
>
> If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco, Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
>
>
>
> From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.: active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options will support having a status layered on top.
>
>
>
> Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please provide specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
>
> [ ] Leader/Follower
>
> [ ] Primary/Backup
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
>
> [2] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
>
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>
> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
>
> [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
>
> Lucas Tétreault
> Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Michael André Pearce <mi...@me.com.INVALID>.
My understanding was previous discuss thread was that we leant for for Primary/Backup
What I was suggesting as it seemed it wasn’t closed out and it continues to rumble on was a binary vote per Apache voting on that as the proposal to end and close it out formally.
As this is multiple choice this is not a vote thread, for it to be a vote it needs to be a proposal with a vote of +1/0/-1 on the proposal, not multi choice. Afaik.
For the record I stand with the consensus from the previous discussion as no new arguments are made here.
As such I would in poll
[+1] primary/backup
[-1] Leader/Follower
Sent from my iPad
> On 6 May 2022, at 07:26, Tetreault, Lucas <te...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Hey folks,
>
> I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to call for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
>
>
> A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled out.
>
>
>
> If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco, Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
>
>
>
> From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.: active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options will support having a status layered on top.
>
>
>
> Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please provide specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
>
> [ ] Leader/Follower
>
> [ ] Primary/Backup
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
>
> [2] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
>
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>
> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
>
> [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
>
> Lucas Tétreault
> Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
I'd be ok with Active/Standby specifically for 5.x, but not sure if it
works for Artemis or not without thinking about it more so I'd want to hear
from people with more Artemis experience.
I am starting to think more and more that to be the most accurate we may
need different terms for each broker but the obvious downside would be
confusion with more than one set of terms.
I personally would be ok with a couple different options as I don't know
that there is a perfect choice. Mostly I just think we need to pick
*something* as this conversation has gone on for a long time and it's just
time to choose and move on.
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 10:26 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When a user pulls up a web page or dashboard with a field next to the
> broker name what should they see?
>
> Use Case 1: Why would it makes sense to a user that has a 5-broker NOB
> cluster see the term ‘primary’ 5 times?
>
> Use Case 2: Why would a user that has a single broker see a status of
> ‘primary’?
>
> Use Case 3: With two ‘master’ and two 'slave’ brokers in a cluster the
> user would see ‘primary’, ‘backup’, ‘primary’, ‘backup’. What does that
> mean? How can I have two ‘primary’ brokers? What are the ‘backup’ instances
> backing up?
>
> See how these terms makes no sense in the context of how ActiveMQ brokers
> work and how users use them?
>
> All these use cases make more sense with:
>
> +1 Active / Standby
>
> I think the terminology is really important here, since there is already
> interest (redis) for adding add’l data store backends and enhancements to
> kahadb (replication)— and to have a goal to align with Artemis.
>
> -1 Leader/Follower — this should be reserved for a state or status flag at
> the persistence layer
> -1 Backup — this is a bad term for using with a systems that store data.
> IMO in incorrectly insinuates that there is data being ‘backed-up’, which
> is not the case with ActiveMQ 5.x.
> -1 Primary — this is not a great term, since there is no secondary or
> tertiary concept. This also insinuates that there are always multiple
> instances.
>
> ActiveMQ 5.x only has a state — active or polling to become active.
> Transport connectors, network connectors, etc all go offline. These
> primary/leader/follower concepts should be pushed down to the persistence
> layer.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt Pavlovich
>
>
> > On May 6, 2022, at 1:26 AM, Tetreault, Lucas <te...@amazon.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a
> committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that
> this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final
> conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to call
> for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
> >
> >
> > A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive
> terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we
> should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network
> connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was
> raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in
> November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch
> from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679,
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714,
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a
> thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to
> come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled
> out.
> >
> >
> >
> > If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move
> forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will
> follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community
> and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and
> make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other
> Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to
> leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and
> inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco,
> Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA
> deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that
> active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can
> be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or
> some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt
> leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
> >
> >
> >
> > From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to
> replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.:
> active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without
> deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options
> will support having a status layered on top.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please provide
> specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
> >
> > [ ] Leader/Follower
> >
> > [ ] Primary/Backup
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
> >
> > [2]
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
> >
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> >
> > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
> >
> > [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> > [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> > [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
> >
> > Lucas Tétreault
> > Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> > email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Arthur Naseef <ar...@amlinv.com>.
My 2 cents...
For AMQ 5: Active / Passive or Active / Standby makes sense for H/A. NOB
it does not apply - each "node" (H/A pair in case every broker is running
in H/A) has active/passive pairs. So yes, a NOB could have a bunch of
brokers all in Active state if none of the nodes is running H/A. NOB is
never H/A.
For Artemis, since there is a designated Primary broker (the Secondary
broker cannot become active until after the Primary starts and is Active),
then it seems two sets of terms apply. Active/Passive for the actual
runtime state, and Primary/Secondary for the assigned role. Live/Backup
feels like it mixes the two - Live feels like runtime state. Backup feels
like assigned role.
Art
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 8:33 AM Christopher Shannon <
christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Justin,
>
> Looks like you sent your response right when I sent mine where I mentioned
> I was leaning towards having different terms between brokers.
>
> You more accurately described the situation than I did. It's not so much a
> difference between 5.x and Artemis but two different scenarios of runtime
> vs configuration and I like your idea of having a set of nouns and
> adjectives and do think it would help solve the issue. I also think
> the terms you picked work well so I would be in favor of going with both
> sets and having Primary/Backup and also Active/Passive depending on the
> situation described.
>
> Chris
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 11:23 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > > When a user pulls up a web page or dashboard with a field next to the
> > broker name what should they see?
> >
> > It depends on which ActiveMQ broker they're using.
> >
> > In ActiveMQ "Classic" there is no configured state, as you note. There is
> > only runtime state, and it makes sense for that to be something like
> > "Active" or "Passive."
> >
> > However, in ActiveMQ Artemis there is both configured state and runtime
> > state so it would make sense to see something like "Active Primary,"
> > "Active Backup," "Passive Backup," etc.
> >
> > This gets back to a suggestion I made on AMQ-7514 [1] almost a year ago
> now
> > - we need 2 nouns to denote configured state and 2 adjectives to denote
> > runtime state and we need to use those consistently across code &
> > documentation for both brokers.
> >
> > It may turn out that ActiveMQ "Classic" ultimately only uses the
> adjectives
> > and that's 100% fine. However, there is currently both documentation and
> > URL configuration which refers to "master" and "slave" in some capacity.
> >
> > In short, it's not sufficient to have just nouns or just adjectives. We
> > need *both* for the project as a whole. I think this disconnect is one of
> > the main reasons why we haven't resolved this matter already.
> >
> > My vote is for...
> >
> > Nouns:
> > [+1] Primary/Backup
> >
> > Adjectives:
> > [+1] Active/Passive
> >
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514?focusedCommentId=17377740&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17377740
> >
> > On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:36 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > When a user pulls up a web page or dashboard with a field next to the
> > > broker name what should they see?
> > >
> > > Use Case 1: Why would it makes sense to a user that has a 5-broker NOB
> > > cluster see the term ‘primary’ 5 times?
> > >
> > > Use Case 2: Why would a user that has a single broker see a status of
> > > ‘primary’?
> > >
> > > Use Case 3: With two ‘master’ and two 'slave’ brokers in a cluster the
> > > user would see ‘primary’, ‘backup’, ‘primary’, ‘backup’. What does
> that
> > > mean? How can I have two ‘primary’ brokers? What are the ‘backup’
> > instances
> > > backing up?
> > >
> > > See how these terms makes no sense in the context of how ActiveMQ
> brokers
> > > work and how users use them?
> > >
> > > All these use cases make more sense with:
> > >
> > > +1 Active / Standby
> > >
> > > I think the terminology is really important here, since there is
> already
> > > interest (redis) for adding add’l data store backends and enhancements
> to
> > > kahadb (replication)— and to have a goal to align with Artemis.
> > >
> > > -1 Leader/Follower — this should be reserved for a state or status flag
> > at
> > > the persistence layer
> > > -1 Backup — this is a bad term for using with a systems that store
> data.
> > > IMO in incorrectly insinuates that there is data being ‘backed-up’,
> which
> > > is not the case with ActiveMQ 5.x.
> > > -1 Primary — this is not a great term, since there is no secondary or
> > > tertiary concept. This also insinuates that there are always multiple
> > > instances.
> > >
> > > ActiveMQ 5.x only has a state — active or polling to become active.
> > > Transport connectors, network connectors, etc all go offline. These
> > > primary/leader/follower concepts should be pushed down to the
> persistence
> > > layer.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Matt Pavlovich
> > >
> > >
> > > > On May 6, 2022, at 1:26 AM, Tetreault, Lucas
> > <te...@amazon.com.INVALID>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey folks,
> > > >
> > > > I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m
> not a
> > > committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack
> that
> > > this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a
> final
> > > conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to
> call
> > > for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive
> > > terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that
> we
> > > should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network
> > > connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ
> was
> > > raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list
> in
> > > November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch
> > > from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (
> > > https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679,
> > > https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714,
> > > https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich
> drafted
> > a
> > > thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been
> able
> > to
> > > come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have
> > stalled
> > > out.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move
> > > forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I
> > will
> > > follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the
> > community
> > > and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption
> and
> > > make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone!
> > Other
> > > Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to
> > > leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4]
> and
> > > inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco,
> > > Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA
> > > deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that
> > > active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active'
> > can
> > > be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower
> or
> > > some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt
> > > leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to
> > > replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.:
> > > active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without
> > > deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options
> > > will support having a status layered on top.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please
> provide
> > > specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
> > > >
> > > > [ ] Leader/Follower
> > > >
> > > > [ ] Primary/Backup
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
> > > >
> > > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
> > > >
> > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> > > >
> > > > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
> > > >
> > > > [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> > > > [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> > > > [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
> > > >
> > > > Lucas Tétreault
> > > > Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> > > > email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1 Chris and Justin rationale. I agree with having an agreed upon set of noun and adjective pairs for the project that the brokers can adopt accordingly.
Regarding the url term usage in ActiveMQ 5.x— that instance of the terminology usage is being corrected in an open PR, and can safely be disregarded as a use case for this convo.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On May 6, 2022, at 10:33 AM, Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Justin,
>
> Looks like you sent your response right when I sent mine where I mentioned
> I was leaning towards having different terms between brokers.
>
> You more accurately described the situation than I did. It's not so much a
> difference between 5.x and Artemis but two different scenarios of runtime
> vs configuration and I like your idea of having a set of nouns and
> adjectives and do think it would help solve the issue. I also think
> the terms you picked work well so I would be in favor of going with both
> sets and having Primary/Backup and also Active/Passive depending on the
> situation described.
>
> Chris
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 11:23 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>> When a user pulls up a web page or dashboard with a field next to the
>> broker name what should they see?
>>
>> It depends on which ActiveMQ broker they're using.
>>
>> In ActiveMQ "Classic" there is no configured state, as you note. There is
>> only runtime state, and it makes sense for that to be something like
>> "Active" or "Passive."
>>
>> However, in ActiveMQ Artemis there is both configured state and runtime
>> state so it would make sense to see something like "Active Primary,"
>> "Active Backup," "Passive Backup," etc.
>>
>> This gets back to a suggestion I made on AMQ-7514 [1] almost a year ago now
>> - we need 2 nouns to denote configured state and 2 adjectives to denote
>> runtime state and we need to use those consistently across code &
>> documentation for both brokers.
>>
>> It may turn out that ActiveMQ "Classic" ultimately only uses the adjectives
>> and that's 100% fine. However, there is currently both documentation and
>> URL configuration which refers to "master" and "slave" in some capacity.
>>
>> In short, it's not sufficient to have just nouns or just adjectives. We
>> need *both* for the project as a whole. I think this disconnect is one of
>> the main reasons why we haven't resolved this matter already.
>>
>> My vote is for...
>>
>> Nouns:
>> [+1] Primary/Backup
>>
>> Adjectives:
>> [+1] Active/Passive
>>
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514?focusedCommentId=17377740&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17377740
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:36 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> When a user pulls up a web page or dashboard with a field next to the
>>> broker name what should they see?
>>>
>>> Use Case 1: Why would it makes sense to a user that has a 5-broker NOB
>>> cluster see the term ‘primary’ 5 times?
>>>
>>> Use Case 2: Why would a user that has a single broker see a status of
>>> ‘primary’?
>>>
>>> Use Case 3: With two ‘master’ and two 'slave’ brokers in a cluster the
>>> user would see ‘primary’, ‘backup’, ‘primary’, ‘backup’. What does that
>>> mean? How can I have two ‘primary’ brokers? What are the ‘backup’
>> instances
>>> backing up?
>>>
>>> See how these terms makes no sense in the context of how ActiveMQ brokers
>>> work and how users use them?
>>>
>>> All these use cases make more sense with:
>>>
>>> +1 Active / Standby
>>>
>>> I think the terminology is really important here, since there is already
>>> interest (redis) for adding add’l data store backends and enhancements to
>>> kahadb (replication)— and to have a goal to align with Artemis.
>>>
>>> -1 Leader/Follower — this should be reserved for a state or status flag
>> at
>>> the persistence layer
>>> -1 Backup — this is a bad term for using with a systems that store data.
>>> IMO in incorrectly insinuates that there is data being ‘backed-up’, which
>>> is not the case with ActiveMQ 5.x.
>>> -1 Primary — this is not a great term, since there is no secondary or
>>> tertiary concept. This also insinuates that there are always multiple
>>> instances.
>>>
>>> ActiveMQ 5.x only has a state — active or polling to become active.
>>> Transport connectors, network connectors, etc all go offline. These
>>> primary/leader/follower concepts should be pushed down to the persistence
>>> layer.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Matt Pavlovich
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 6, 2022, at 1:26 AM, Tetreault, Lucas
>> <te...@amazon.com.INVALID>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey folks,
>>>>
>>>> I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a
>>> committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that
>>> this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final
>>> conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to call
>>> for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive
>>> terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we
>>> should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network
>>> connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was
>>> raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in
>>> November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch
>>> from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (
>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679,
>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714,
>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted
>> a
>>> thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able
>> to
>>> come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have
>> stalled
>>> out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move
>>> forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I
>> will
>>> follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the
>> community
>>> and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and
>>> make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone!
>> Other
>>> Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to
>>> leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and
>>> inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco,
>>> Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA
>>> deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that
>>> active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active'
>> can
>>> be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or
>>> some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt
>>> leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to
>>> replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.:
>>> active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without
>>> deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options
>>> will support having a status layered on top.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please provide
>>> specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] Leader/Follower
>>>>
>>>> [ ] Primary/Backup
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
>>>>
>>>> [2]
>>>
>> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
>>>>
>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>>>>
>>>> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
>>>>
>>>> [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
>>>> [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
>>>> [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
>>>>
>>>> Lucas Tétreault
>>>> Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
>>>> email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
Justin,
Looks like you sent your response right when I sent mine where I mentioned
I was leaning towards having different terms between brokers.
You more accurately described the situation than I did. It's not so much a
difference between 5.x and Artemis but two different scenarios of runtime
vs configuration and I like your idea of having a set of nouns and
adjectives and do think it would help solve the issue. I also think
the terms you picked work well so I would be in favor of going with both
sets and having Primary/Backup and also Active/Passive depending on the
situation described.
Chris
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 11:23 AM Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> > When a user pulls up a web page or dashboard with a field next to the
> broker name what should they see?
>
> It depends on which ActiveMQ broker they're using.
>
> In ActiveMQ "Classic" there is no configured state, as you note. There is
> only runtime state, and it makes sense for that to be something like
> "Active" or "Passive."
>
> However, in ActiveMQ Artemis there is both configured state and runtime
> state so it would make sense to see something like "Active Primary,"
> "Active Backup," "Passive Backup," etc.
>
> This gets back to a suggestion I made on AMQ-7514 [1] almost a year ago now
> - we need 2 nouns to denote configured state and 2 adjectives to denote
> runtime state and we need to use those consistently across code &
> documentation for both brokers.
>
> It may turn out that ActiveMQ "Classic" ultimately only uses the adjectives
> and that's 100% fine. However, there is currently both documentation and
> URL configuration which refers to "master" and "slave" in some capacity.
>
> In short, it's not sufficient to have just nouns or just adjectives. We
> need *both* for the project as a whole. I think this disconnect is one of
> the main reasons why we haven't resolved this matter already.
>
> My vote is for...
>
> Nouns:
> [+1] Primary/Backup
>
> Adjectives:
> [+1] Active/Passive
>
>
> Justin
>
> [1]
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514?focusedCommentId=17377740&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17377740
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:36 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When a user pulls up a web page or dashboard with a field next to the
> > broker name what should they see?
> >
> > Use Case 1: Why would it makes sense to a user that has a 5-broker NOB
> > cluster see the term ‘primary’ 5 times?
> >
> > Use Case 2: Why would a user that has a single broker see a status of
> > ‘primary’?
> >
> > Use Case 3: With two ‘master’ and two 'slave’ brokers in a cluster the
> > user would see ‘primary’, ‘backup’, ‘primary’, ‘backup’. What does that
> > mean? How can I have two ‘primary’ brokers? What are the ‘backup’
> instances
> > backing up?
> >
> > See how these terms makes no sense in the context of how ActiveMQ brokers
> > work and how users use them?
> >
> > All these use cases make more sense with:
> >
> > +1 Active / Standby
> >
> > I think the terminology is really important here, since there is already
> > interest (redis) for adding add’l data store backends and enhancements to
> > kahadb (replication)— and to have a goal to align with Artemis.
> >
> > -1 Leader/Follower — this should be reserved for a state or status flag
> at
> > the persistence layer
> > -1 Backup — this is a bad term for using with a systems that store data.
> > IMO in incorrectly insinuates that there is data being ‘backed-up’, which
> > is not the case with ActiveMQ 5.x.
> > -1 Primary — this is not a great term, since there is no secondary or
> > tertiary concept. This also insinuates that there are always multiple
> > instances.
> >
> > ActiveMQ 5.x only has a state — active or polling to become active.
> > Transport connectors, network connectors, etc all go offline. These
> > primary/leader/follower concepts should be pushed down to the persistence
> > layer.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Matt Pavlovich
> >
> >
> > > On May 6, 2022, at 1:26 AM, Tetreault, Lucas
> <te...@amazon.com.INVALID>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey folks,
> > >
> > > I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a
> > committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that
> > this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final
> > conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to call
> > for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
> > >
> > >
> > > A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive
> > terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we
> > should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network
> > connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was
> > raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in
> > November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch
> > from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679,
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714,
> > https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted
> a
> > thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able
> to
> > come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have
> stalled
> > out.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move
> > forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I
> will
> > follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the
> community
> > and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and
> > make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone!
> Other
> > Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to
> > leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and
> > inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco,
> > Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA
> > deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that
> > active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active'
> can
> > be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or
> > some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt
> > leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to
> > replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.:
> > active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without
> > deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options
> > will support having a status layered on top.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please provide
> > specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
> > >
> > > [ ] Leader/Follower
> > >
> > > [ ] Primary/Backup
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
> > >
> > > [2]
> >
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
> > >
> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> > >
> > > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
> > >
> > > [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> > > [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> > > [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
> > >
> > > Lucas Tétreault
> > > Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> > > email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.org>.
> When a user pulls up a web page or dashboard with a field next to the
broker name what should they see?
It depends on which ActiveMQ broker they're using.
In ActiveMQ "Classic" there is no configured state, as you note. There is
only runtime state, and it makes sense for that to be something like
"Active" or "Passive."
However, in ActiveMQ Artemis there is both configured state and runtime
state so it would make sense to see something like "Active Primary,"
"Active Backup," "Passive Backup," etc.
This gets back to a suggestion I made on AMQ-7514 [1] almost a year ago now
- we need 2 nouns to denote configured state and 2 adjectives to denote
runtime state and we need to use those consistently across code &
documentation for both brokers.
It may turn out that ActiveMQ "Classic" ultimately only uses the adjectives
and that's 100% fine. However, there is currently both documentation and
URL configuration which refers to "master" and "slave" in some capacity.
In short, it's not sufficient to have just nouns or just adjectives. We
need *both* for the project as a whole. I think this disconnect is one of
the main reasons why we haven't resolved this matter already.
My vote is for...
Nouns:
[+1] Primary/Backup
Adjectives:
[+1] Active/Passive
Justin
[1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514?focusedCommentId=17377740&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17377740
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:36 AM Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When a user pulls up a web page or dashboard with a field next to the
> broker name what should they see?
>
> Use Case 1: Why would it makes sense to a user that has a 5-broker NOB
> cluster see the term ‘primary’ 5 times?
>
> Use Case 2: Why would a user that has a single broker see a status of
> ‘primary’?
>
> Use Case 3: With two ‘master’ and two 'slave’ brokers in a cluster the
> user would see ‘primary’, ‘backup’, ‘primary’, ‘backup’. What does that
> mean? How can I have two ‘primary’ brokers? What are the ‘backup’ instances
> backing up?
>
> See how these terms makes no sense in the context of how ActiveMQ brokers
> work and how users use them?
>
> All these use cases make more sense with:
>
> +1 Active / Standby
>
> I think the terminology is really important here, since there is already
> interest (redis) for adding add’l data store backends and enhancements to
> kahadb (replication)— and to have a goal to align with Artemis.
>
> -1 Leader/Follower — this should be reserved for a state or status flag at
> the persistence layer
> -1 Backup — this is a bad term for using with a systems that store data.
> IMO in incorrectly insinuates that there is data being ‘backed-up’, which
> is not the case with ActiveMQ 5.x.
> -1 Primary — this is not a great term, since there is no secondary or
> tertiary concept. This also insinuates that there are always multiple
> instances.
>
> ActiveMQ 5.x only has a state — active or polling to become active.
> Transport connectors, network connectors, etc all go offline. These
> primary/leader/follower concepts should be pushed down to the persistence
> layer.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt Pavlovich
>
>
> > On May 6, 2022, at 1:26 AM, Tetreault, Lucas <te...@amazon.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a
> committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that
> this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final
> conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to call
> for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
> >
> >
> > A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive
> terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we
> should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network
> connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was
> raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in
> November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch
> from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679,
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714,
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a
> thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to
> come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled
> out.
> >
> >
> >
> > If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move
> forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will
> follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community
> and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and
> make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other
> Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to
> leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and
> inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco,
> Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA
> deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that
> active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can
> be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or
> some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt
> leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
> >
> >
> >
> > From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to
> replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.:
> active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without
> deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options
> will support having a status layered on top.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please provide
> specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
> >
> > [ ] Leader/Follower
> >
> > [ ] Primary/Backup
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
> >
> > [2]
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
> >
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> >
> > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
> >
> > [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> > [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> > [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
> >
> > Lucas Tétreault
> > Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> > email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
When a user pulls up a web page or dashboard with a field next to the broker name what should they see?
Use Case 1: Why would it makes sense to a user that has a 5-broker NOB cluster see the term ‘primary’ 5 times?
Use Case 2: Why would a user that has a single broker see a status of ‘primary’?
Use Case 3: With two ‘master’ and two 'slave’ brokers in a cluster the user would see ‘primary’, ‘backup’, ‘primary’, ‘backup’. What does that mean? How can I have two ‘primary’ brokers? What are the ‘backup’ instances backing up?
See how these terms makes no sense in the context of how ActiveMQ brokers work and how users use them?
All these use cases make more sense with:
+1 Active / Standby
I think the terminology is really important here, since there is already interest (redis) for adding add’l data store backends and enhancements to kahadb (replication)— and to have a goal to align with Artemis.
-1 Leader/Follower — this should be reserved for a state or status flag at the persistence layer
-1 Backup — this is a bad term for using with a systems that store data. IMO in incorrectly insinuates that there is data being ‘backed-up’, which is not the case with ActiveMQ 5.x.
-1 Primary — this is not a great term, since there is no secondary or tertiary concept. This also insinuates that there are always multiple instances.
ActiveMQ 5.x only has a state — active or polling to become active. Transport connectors, network connectors, etc all go offline. These primary/leader/follower concepts should be pushed down to the persistence layer.
Thanks,
Matt Pavlovich
> On May 6, 2022, at 1:26 AM, Tetreault, Lucas <te...@amazon.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Hey folks,
>
> I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to call for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
>
>
> A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled out.
>
>
>
> If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco, Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
>
>
>
> From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.: active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options will support having a status layered on top.
>
>
>
> Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please provide specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
>
> [ ] Leader/Follower
>
> [ ] Primary/Backup
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
>
> [2] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
>
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>
> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
>
> [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
>
> Lucas Tétreault
> Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>.
because that is actually what master/slave evolate, when in a new era.
Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com> 于2022年5月6日周五 20:33写道：
> +1 for capitalist/worker
>
> Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> 于2022年5月6日周五 20:27写道：
>
>> We already had this discussion before I think, and we decided for
>> Primary/Backup
>>
>>
>> if you still want to keep the vote for that...
>>
>> [+1] primary/backup
>> [-1000] Leader/Follower
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 6:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Of the various things mentioned so far I would go with Primary/Backup
>> > or Primary/Replica.
>> >
>> > Sticking to just the original choices in this thread only, that would
>> be:
>> > [+1] Primary/Backup
>> > [-1] Leader/Follower
>> >
>> > On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 11:43, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 07:26, Tetreault, Lucas
>> > > <te...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Hey folks,
>> > > >
>> > > > I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m
>> not a committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack
>> that this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a
>> final conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to
>> call for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I'd consider this more of a poll anyway given the format and responses
>> > > so far hehe. Which seems fine, a bona fide formal vote doesnt seem
>> > > necessary for this to me, not unless no [begrudging] agreement can be
>> > > reached in discussion.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive
>> terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we
>> should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network
>> connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was
>> raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in
>> November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch
>> from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (
>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679,
>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714,
>> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted
>> a thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able
>> to come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have
>> stalled out.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move
>> forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will
>> follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community
>> and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and
>> make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other
>> Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to
>> leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and
>> inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco,
>> Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA
>> deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that
>> active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can
>> be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or
>> some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt
>> leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > To be more specific, Leader/follower is in the inclusivenaming.org
>> > > 'Also acceptable' list rather than their 'Preferred' list where e.g
>> > > Primary/replica and Primary/secondary are.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to
>> replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.:
>> active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without
>> deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options
>> will support having a status layered on top.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please
>> provide specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
>> > > >
>> > > > [ ] Leader/Follower
>> > > >
>> > > > [ ] Primary/Backup
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
>> > > >
>> > > > [2]
>> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
>> > > >
>> > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>> > > >
>> > > > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
>> > > >
>> > > > [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
>> > > > [6]
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
>> > > > [7]
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
>> > > >
>> > > > Lucas Tétreault
>> > > > Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
>> > > > email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Xeno Amess <xe...@gmail.com>.
+1 for capitalist/worker
Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> 于2022年5月6日周五 20:27写道：
> We already had this discussion before I think, and we decided for
> Primary/Backup
>
>
> if you still want to keep the vote for that...
>
> [+1] primary/backup
> [-1000] Leader/Follower
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 6:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Of the various things mentioned so far I would go with Primary/Backup
> > or Primary/Replica.
> >
> > Sticking to just the original choices in this thread only, that would be:
> > [+1] Primary/Backup
> > [-1] Leader/Follower
> >
> > On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 11:43, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 07:26, Tetreault, Lucas
> > > <te...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey folks,
> > > >
> > > > I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m
> not a committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack
> that this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a
> final conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to
> call for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd consider this more of a poll anyway given the format and responses
> > > so far hehe. Which seems fine, a bona fide formal vote doesnt seem
> > > necessary for this to me, not unless no [begrudging] agreement can be
> > > reached in discussion.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive
> terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we
> should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network
> connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was
> raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in
> November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch
> from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679,
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714,
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a
> thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to
> come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled
> out.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move
> forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will
> follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community
> and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and
> make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other
> Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to
> leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and
> inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco,
> Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA
> deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that
> active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can
> be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or
> some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt
> leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
> > > >
> > >
> > > To be more specific, Leader/follower is in the inclusivenaming.org
> > > 'Also acceptable' list rather than their 'Preferred' list where e.g
> > > Primary/replica and Primary/secondary are.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to
> replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.:
> active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without
> deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options
> will support having a status layered on top.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please
> provide specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
> > > >
> > > > [ ] Leader/Follower
> > > >
> > > > [ ] Primary/Backup
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
> > > >
> > > > [2]
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
> > > >
> > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> > > >
> > > > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
> > > >
> > > > [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> > > > [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> > > > [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
> > > >
> > > > Lucas Tétreault
> > > > Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> > > > email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
> > > >
> > > >
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
We already had this discussion before I think, and we decided for Primary/Backup
if you still want to keep the vote for that...
[+1] primary/backup
[-1000] Leader/Follower
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 6:57 AM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Of the various things mentioned so far I would go with Primary/Backup
> or Primary/Replica.
>
> Sticking to just the original choices in this thread only, that would be:
> [+1] Primary/Backup
> [-1] Leader/Follower
>
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 11:43, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 07:26, Tetreault, Lucas
> > <te...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey folks,
> > >
> > > I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to call for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
> > >
> >
> > I'd consider this more of a poll anyway given the format and responses
> > so far hehe. Which seems fine, a bona fide formal vote doesnt seem
> > necessary for this to me, not unless no [begrudging] agreement can be
> > reached in discussion.
> >
> > >
> > > A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled out.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco, Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
> > >
> >
> > To be more specific, Leader/follower is in the inclusivenaming.org
> > 'Also acceptable' list rather than their 'Preferred' list where e.g
> > Primary/replica and Primary/secondary are.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.: active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options will support having a status layered on top.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please provide specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
> > >
> > > [ ] Leader/Follower
> > >
> > > [ ] Primary/Backup
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
> > >
> > > [2] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
> > >
> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> > >
> > > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
> > >
> > > [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> > > [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> > > [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
> > >
> > > Lucas Tétreault
> > > Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> > > email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
> > >
> > >
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
Of the various things mentioned so far I would go with Primary/Backup
or Primary/Replica.
Sticking to just the original choices in this thread only, that would be:
[+1] Primary/Backup
[-1] Leader/Follower
On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 11:43, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 07:26, Tetreault, Lucas
> <te...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to call for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
> >
>
> I'd consider this more of a poll anyway given the format and responses
> so far hehe. Which seems fine, a bona fide formal vote doesnt seem
> necessary for this to me, not unless no [begrudging] agreement can be
> reached in discussion.
>
> >
> > A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled out.
> >
> >
> >
> > If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco, Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
> >
>
> To be more specific, Leader/follower is in the inclusivenaming.org
> 'Also acceptable' list rather than their 'Preferred' list where e.g
> Primary/replica and Primary/secondary are.
>
> >
> >
> > From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.: active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options will support having a status layered on top.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please provide specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
> >
> > [ ] Leader/Follower
> >
> > [ ] Primary/Backup
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
> >
> > [2] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
> >
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> >
> > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
> >
> > [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> > [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> > [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
> >
> > Lucas Tétreault
> > Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> > email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
> >
> >
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 07:26, Tetreault, Lucas
<te...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Hey folks,
>
> I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to call for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
>
I'd consider this more of a poll anyway given the format and responses
so far hehe. Which seems fine, a bona fide formal vote doesnt seem
necessary for this to me, not unless no [begrudging] agreement can be
reached in discussion.
>
> A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled out.
>
>
>
> If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco, Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
>
To be more specific, Leader/follower is in the inclusivenaming.org
'Also acceptable' list rather than their 'Preferred' list where e.g
Primary/replica and Primary/secondary are.
>
>
> From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.: active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options will support having a status layered on top.
>
>
>
> Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please provide specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
>
> [ ] Leader/Follower
>
> [ ] Primary/Backup
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
>
> [2] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
>
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>
> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
>
> [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
>
> Lucas Tétreault
> Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Christopher Shannon <ch...@gmail.com>.
+1 for Primary/Backup with my reasoning below.
First, it's pretty clear like "leader/follower" is a no go based on the
feedback so far so we can throw that out.
For HA, there are slightly different use cases here depending on the broker
and mode chosen with how HA works which is probably why there is some
disagreement.
I believe Artemis has two different modes where it can do live/back up
servers and also can do replication so that's really two slightly different
things to me so we either need different terms between the modes or try and
pick something to cover both (the simpler and preferred option to me).
Primary/Backup makes sense to me for the first HA option. For the second
one where data is replicated live I would think Primary/Replica makes sense
as well. However, to simplify things and use the same term to cover both
then I'd go with Primary/Backup.
For 5.x Primary/Backup (or Active/Passive) works fine to describe how it
works but I'd go with Primary/Backup to be consistent.
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 10:01 AM Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/6/22 02:26, Tetreault, Lucas wrote:
> > [ ] Primary/Backup
>
> [+1] Primary/Backup
>
> --
> Tim Bish
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>.
On 5/6/22 02:26, Tetreault, Lucas wrote:
> [ ] Primary/Backup
[+1] Primary/Backup
--
Tim Bish
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Havret <h4...@gmail.com>.
[+1] Leader/Follower
[-1] Primary/Backup - it doesn't sound right to me, as it doesn't imply
that there might be a role switch.
Krzysztof
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 8:26 AM Tetreault, Lucas <te...@amazon.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a
> committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that
> this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final
> conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to call
> for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
>
>
> A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive
> terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we
> should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network
> connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was
> raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in
> November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch
> from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679,
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714,
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a
> thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to
> come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled
> out.
>
>
>
> If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move
> forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will
> follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community
> and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and
> make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other
> Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to
> leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and
> inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco,
> Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA
> deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that
> active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can
> be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or
> some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt
> leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
>
>
>
> From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to
> replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.:
> active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without
> deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options
> will support having a status layered on top.
>
>
>
> Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please provide
> specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
>
> [ ] Leader/Follower
>
> [ ] Primary/Backup
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
>
> [2]
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
>
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>
> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
>
> [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
>
> Lucas Tétreault
> Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
I'd be +1 on active/passive as well.
Jon
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 8:06 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> -1 for leader/follower, it doesn't apply for current master/slave
> mechanism, it's not the same semantic as in Kafka for instance
> -1 for primary/backup, technically, this one could work, but it sounds
> "confusing" to me
> +1 for active/passive is probably the most accurate and describe the
> behavior (we have one broker active, and several passive)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 8:26 AM Tetreault, Lucas
> <te...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a
> committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that
> this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final
> conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to call
> for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
> >
> >
> > A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive
> terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we
> should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network
> connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was
> raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in
> November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch
> from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679,
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714,
> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a
> thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to
> come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled
> out.
> >
> >
> >
> > If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move
> forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will
> follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community
> and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and
> make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other
> Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to
> leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and
> inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco,
> Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA
> deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that
> active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can
> be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or
> some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt
> leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
> >
> >
> >
> > From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to
> replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.:
> active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without
> deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options
> will support having a status layered on top.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please provide
> specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
> >
> > [ ] Leader/Follower
> >
> > [ ] Primary/Backup
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
> >
> > [2]
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
> >
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
> >
> > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
> >
> > [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> > [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> > [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
> >
> > Lucas Tétreault
> > Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> > email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Terminology to replace master/slave in ActiveMQ
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
-1 for leader/follower, it doesn't apply for current master/slave
mechanism, it's not the same semantic as in Kafka for instance
-1 for primary/backup, technically, this one could work, but it sounds
"confusing" to me
+1 for active/passive is probably the most accurate and describe the
behavior (we have one broker active, and several passive)
Regards
JB
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 8:26 AM Tetreault, Lucas
<te...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Hey folks,
>
> I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m not a committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack that this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a final conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to call for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :)
>
>
> A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code (https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714, https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled out.
>
>
>
> If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco, Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users.
>
>
>
> From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.: active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options will support having a status layered on top.
>
>
>
> Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please provide specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options.
>
> [ ] Leader/Follower
>
> [ ] Primary/Backup
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032
>
> [2] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors
>
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514
>
> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
>
> [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/
> [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj
> [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c
>
> Lucas Tétreault
> Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ
> email: tetlucas@amazon.com<ma...@amazon.com>
>
>