You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@nifi.apache.org by Mike Thomsen <mi...@gmail.com> on 2020/07/03 02:26:46 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] rename master branch, look through code for other
related issues
Didn't see any commits or PRs for any of these yet. Do we want to consider
these blockers for 1.12 or hold off until a post 1.12 release?
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:48 PM Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not that I'm aware of. All this so far just looks really easy to deal
> with.
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:46 AM Mike Thomsen <mi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Out of curiosity... are there any cases you've found where we might have
> a
> > term misalignment with what another product calls them? Like we might
> have
> > primary/replica and the supported system uses master/slave?
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:32 AM Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > ...additional note after reviewing the presence of
> 'whitelist/blacklist'
> > I
> > > remain of the view what we need to do here is easy. There is minimal
> API
> > > impact and it appears to be just the nifi.properties file for a
> property.
> > > Other code changes do not appear to be API related and seem fair game
> > now.
> > > We can easily support the old naming and create a different property
> name
> > > for the properties file case. We dont need to wait for any major
> release
> > > as far as I can tell
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 4:47 PM Mike Thomsen <mi...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think just shooting for #1 right away makes sense, but #2 will need
> > to
> > > be
> > > > done as part of a major release. I think we go all-in to be
> consistent
> > on
> > > > allow/block vs white/black and similar changes that are needed. We
> > should
> > > > also avoid things like the proposal to use "allowlist/denylist" that
> > > other
> > > > teams are debating since that is just a pointless spawning of
> > neologisms
> > > > for the sake of creating them. The best approach is to use clear,
> > concise
> > > > language that is preferably as limited on jargon as possible, and I
> > feel
> > > > like those teams are missing the mark on that. If we do find language
> > > that
> > > > needs to be changed in descriptor name fields, I think it would also
> > > > prevent any problems by making part of the messaging being that those
> > > > changes are non-negotiable as they represent real potential breakage
> to
> > > > users. I think most folks would be fine with that, but it might need
> to
> > > be
> > > > spelled out for some that there is a balance that has to be
> maintained
> > > > until a proper transition can take place.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 6:23 PM Tony Kurc <tk...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This discussion has died down quite a bit. I got the impression
> there
> > > was
> > > > > at least majority support, although not consensus, for Joe's two
> > > > proposals
> > > > > [1].
> > > > >
> > > > > #1 ( s/master/main/ ) is probably the most straightforward - change
> > > > > developer docs and make the necessary repository changes. Can be
> done
> > > > > seemingly independent of software releases. Is it time for jiras on
> > > that?
> > > > > My sense is that 'main' appears to be a common term that projects
> > > appear
> > > > to
> > > > > be gravitating to, but that discussion still abounds. This comment
> > [2]
> > > on
> > > > > the git project's mailing list hurt my head quite a bit, but
> > definitely
> > > > > reinforced that main makes a whole lot more sense than master, as
> > Andy
> > > > > pointed out [3].
> > > > >
> > > > > #2 is a bit less straightforward, going to require a code change
> and
> > > > figure
> > > > > out where that fits with the versioning scheme commitments [4]. Do
> we
> > > > > support both allow/block (or deny?) along with white/black in a
> minor
> > > > > release, and then prune white/black on next major release?
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r6c133a31f882d3c818e63fa44dbc451f61d423a22dbe72396483127b%40%3Cdev.nifi.apache.org%3E
> > > > >
> > > > > 2.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/CANgJU+Ut+ANPHud1JQw1Wo+zb37_=EWx-vgap6FGC+T=-dzn4A@mail.gmail.com/
> > > > > 3.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r86a9a390f023a0298488084bdcb4caaa4bedfe406f1c86a1ca4bdac3%40%3Cdev.nifi.apache.org%3E
> > > > > 4.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Version+Scheme+and+API+Compatibility
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:36 PM Otto Fowler <
> ottobackwards@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > As long as it isn’t renamed to zeek or something, I think we
> > should
> > > > > change
> > > > > > it and not look back.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On June 18, 2020 at 19:05:38, Mike Thomsen (
> mikerthomsen@gmail.com
> > )
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > As teammates and friends, it was an easy change, even if code
> was
> > > > > > involved. And I assume much easier than having the courage to ask
> > for
> > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ironically, around the same time I had a colleague who was like
> the
> > > > evil
> > > > > > opposite of that. Friend is the last word any of us would use to
> > > > describe
> > > > > > him. He was a cautionary tale in why teams have to also maintain
> > > > defense
> > > > > > mechanisms against toxic people who exploit empathy as a power
> > play;
> > > > > it's a
> > > > > > common tactic of abusers/toxic people to make demands on people
> to
> > > > change
> > > > > > their behavior to see how compliant they are. That former
> > colleague,
> > > if
> > > > > you
> > > > > > got them talking about their views, could wax eloquent about
> > > tolerance,
> > > > > > inclusiveness, etc. and then without a hint of irony turn around
> > and
> > > > > wage a
> > > > > > one man war on everyone else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:53 AM Joey Frazee <
> > joey.frazee@icloud.com
> > > > > > .invalid>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I’m repeating this from elsewhere but I was on a team 7 years
> ago
> > > > > where a
> > > > > > > teammate asked us to stop using master and slave terminology,
> > even
> > > > > master
> > > > > > > alone, because it made them uncomfortable. I can’t estimate how
> > > > common
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > feeling is but this isn’t a theoretical exercise. As teammates
> > and
> > > > > > friends,
> > > > > > > it was an easy change, even if code was involved. And I assume
> > much
> > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > than having the courage to ask for it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I’d say it’s also important to note that “but that’s not the
> > > original
> > > > > > > intended word sense” doesn’t alleviate that alienating
> > experience.
> > > > > While
> > > > > > > potentially a matter of fact of the intent for some uses, “I
> want
> > > to
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > that word” is pretty unfriendly stacked against “that makes me
> > feel
> > > > > > > unwelcome”.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Two guidelines from the code of conduct seem particularly
> > apropos:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Be empathetic, welcoming, friendly, and patient
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Be careful in the words that we choose
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AFAICT there’s not an escape hatch for code, tools, or effort.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -joey
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Jun 18, 2020, 10:05 AM -0500, Edward Armes <
> > > > edward.armes@gmail.com
> > > > > >,
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > I agree with this, and maybe that is the potential the step
> > > forward
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > is: issue a statement is issued saying something like this
> is a
> > > > > complex
> > > > > > > > issue and instead of making changes that could cause further
> > > > division
> > > > > > > > within the community we are looking for those that are
> > interested
> > > > to
> > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > form a constructive working group that will help influence
> and
> > > > > resolve
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > of these issues in a positive way for all not only for
> project
> > > but
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > > within the wider group of apache projects.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Edward
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, 11:17 Uwe@Moosheimer.com, <
> > > Uwe@moosheimer.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Language is always changing and the meaning of words is
> > > changing,
> > > > > > > > > sometimes positively and sometimes negatively.
> > > > > > > > > I think that now is time for change again and we should
> > discuss
> > > > the
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > of phrases and meanings.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Of course we should change "Master Branch" to "Main
> Branch".
> > > > > > > > > But I also think that we shouldn't just make quick changes
> > > > because
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > opportune and hastily change a few words.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > An example: We could change Master/Slave to
> Leader/Follower.
> > > This
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > a perfect choice for most people in the world.
> > > > > > > > > In German Leader is the English word for "Führer". And it
> is
> > > > > > precisely
> > > > > > > > > this word that we in Germany do not actually want to use
> for
> > > it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What I mean is that every country and every group (e.g.
> > > religion
> > > > > > etc.)
> > > > > > > > > has its own history and certain words or phrases are just
> > not a
> > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > choice.
> > > > > > > > > We should try to go the ethically correct way worldwide.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This concerns the adaptation of current words and phrases
> > with
> > > a
> > > > > view
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > all: in English, Indian, Chinese, German etc. but also for
> > > > > indigenous
> > > > > > > > > peoples, different religions etc.
> > > > > > > > > And cultural differences should also be taken into account.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What I would wish for:
> > > > > > > > > Apache.org should set up an "Ethics Board". A group of
> people
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > different genders, all colors, religions and from different
> > > > > countries
> > > > > > > > > and cultures all over our world.
> > > > > > > > > This Ethics Board should find good and for no one
> > > discriminating
> > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > or phrases for all the areas that stand out today as
> > offensive.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And it would be nice if not only computer scientists
> > > > participated,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > also ethicists, philosophers, engineers, various religious
> > > > people,
> > > > > > > > > chemists, biologists, physicists, sociologists, etc.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And this Council should set binding targets for all
> projects.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Am 18.06.2020 um 09:36 schrieb Pierre Villard:
> > > > > > > > > > > In my perspective this should be an issue for the
> entire
> > > > > > community.
> > > > > > > > > Being
> > > > > > > > > > > able to identify an issue that directly affects another
> > > > person
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > one’s self is the definition of privilege. If I can
> look
> > at
> > > > how
> > > > > > > the use
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > these words in someone’s daily life or career impacts
> > them
> > > > > > > negatively,
> > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > the change would not harm me at all, I see that as a
> > > failure
> > > > on
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > part. I
> > > > > > > > > > > understand the desire to hear from the silent majority,
> > but
> > > > > > active
> > > > > > > > > > > participation and discussion on the mailing list is the
> > > exact
> > > > > > > measure
> > > > > > > > > > > described by the Apache process for participation in
> the
> > > > > > community.
> > > > > > > > > Those
> > > > > > > > > > > who speak here are the ones who will have a voice.
> > > > > > > > > > I could not agree more with the above.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Le jeu. 18 juin 2020 à 04:29, Tony Kurc <
> tkurc@apache.org>
> > a
> > > > > écrit
> > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I suppose I was a bit remiss in not unwinding and/or
> > > > > summarizing
> > > > > > > some of
> > > > > > > > > > > what was in that yetus thread to prime the discussion,
> > but
> > > a
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > Andy is mentioning is expanded on a bit in this ietf
> > > document
> > > > > > [1],
> > > > > > > > > which is
> > > > > > > > > > > linked in one of the articles.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1.
> > > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 10:02 PM Andy LoPresto <
> > > > > > alopresto@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Edward, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’ll
> reply
> > > > > inline.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Some of the terms proposed are not industry
> > standard
> > > > and
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > potentially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > cause significant issue for non-english speakers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I actually believe making these changes will
> _improve_
> > > the
> > > > > > > clarity for
> > > > > > > > > > > > non-english speakers. “Whitelist” and “blacklist”
> > confer
> > > no
> > > > > > > inherent
> > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > to mean allow and deny other than connotative biases.
> > > > “Allow”
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > “deny”
> > > > > > > > > > > > explicitly indicate the verb that is happening.
> Another
> > > > > example
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > branch
> > > > > > > > > > > > naming. “Masters” don’t have “branches”. “Trunks” do.
> > > These
> > > > > > > terms make
> > > > > > > > > > > > _more_ sense for a non-English speaker than the
> current
> > > > > terms.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - For each change that is made can we guarantee
> that
> > we
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > not lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity of meaning, and then have revert the change
> > > down
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > line if
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > change causes a drop in usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don’t expect the community will opt to change the
> new
> > > > terms
> > > > > > > back to
> > > > > > > > > > > ones
> > > > > > > > > > > > with negative connotations in the future. If there is
> > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > > > > > this thread will provide good historical context for
> > why
> > > > the
> > > > > > > decision
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > made to change it, just as the mailing list
> discussions
> > > do
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Of what percentage of people is this truly an
> issue
> > > for
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > percentage isn't. Any change that has the potential
> > to
> > > > > cause
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > major
> > > > > > > > > > > > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in the community, there must be as close as
> possible
> > > to a
> > > > > > > majority,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > just from those that are vocal and active on the
> > > mailing
> > > > > > lists.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Disscustions on other groups are turning toxic, and
> > in
> > > > some
> > > > > > > cases are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > potentially leading to the collapse of these
> projects
> > > > where
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are being implemented with what appears to be
> without
> > > the
> > > > > > > agreement of
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > signifficant chunk of the community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In my perspective this should be an issue for the
> > entire
> > > > > > > community.
> > > > > > > > > Being
> > > > > > > > > > > > able to identify an issue that directly affects
> another
> > > > > person
> > > > > > > but not
> > > > > > > > > > > > one’s self is the definition of privilege. If I can
> > look
> > > at
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > the use
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > these words in someone’s daily life or career impacts
> > > them
> > > > > > > negatively,
> > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > the change would not harm me at all, I see that as a
> > > > failure
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > part.
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > understand the desire to hear from the silent
> majority,
> > > but
> > > > > > > active
> > > > > > > > > > > > participation and discussion on the mailing list is
> the
> > > > exact
> > > > > > > measure
> > > > > > > > > > > > described by the Apache process for participation in
> > the
> > > > > > > community.
> > > > > > > > > Those
> > > > > > > > > > > > who speak here are the ones who will have a voice.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - From a personal perspective, I sit on the autism
> > > > spectrum
> > > > > > > and have
> > > > > > > > > > > > grown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > up with people using words that are very offensive
> > and
> > > > have
> > > > > > > hurt me
> > > > > > > > > > > > badly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of having these words as offensive and
> > > > untouchable.
> > > > > > > Myself and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > others have instead made these words our own and
> made
> > > > them
> > > > > > > lose the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > negative connotations they have. As such, I do find
> > the
> > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > > > > disscustions deeply alarming and feels like they
> > start
> > > to
> > > > > > > border into
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > realm of censorship.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think it’s admirable that you have responded to
> > > negative
> > > > > > > > > circumstances
> > > > > > > > > > > > in that way. I also recognize that not everyone has
> > that
> > > > > > > opportunity.
> > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > can take these actions as a community to improve the
> > > > > experience
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > others,
> > > > > > > > > > > > I am in favor of that.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - One final point (and potentially controversial),
> A
> > > good
> > > > > > > chunk of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wording that is proposed to be changed. Is being
> done
> > > so
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "modern"/"street" definition of these words and not
> > the
> > > > > > actual
> > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Language should change and evolve to introduce
> > clarity,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > right now
> > > > > > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this change improve the clarity across the
> > engineering
> > > > > sector
> > > > > > > and I
> > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it won't.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I’ll paraphrase Emily Kager here with “developers
> spend
> > > an
> > > > > > > inordinate
> > > > > > > > > > > > amount of time and energy arguing about the meaning
> and
> > > > > > > semantics of
> > > > > > > > > > > > variable and method names, but pretend exclusionary
> > terms
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > meaningless.”
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1] If we can expend that much energy deciding if a
> > > method
> > > > > > > creates vs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > builds vs. forms an imaginary concept like a
> > > > > > > > > > > > LibraryFrameworkWrapperDecorator, I refuse to concede
> > > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > > can and
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > fact should do so with the terms that actually affect
> > our
> > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > members’ lives.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > https://twitter.com/EmilyKager/status/1271102865889734656
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://twitter.com/EmilyKager/status/1271102865889734656>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andy LoPresto
> > > > > > > > > > > > alopresto@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > alopresto.apache@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > He/Him
> > > > > > > > > > > > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E
> > F65B
> > > > 2F7D
> > > > > > > EF69
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 6:43 PM, Edward Armes <
> > > > > > > edward.armes@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a difficult issue and causes no small
> amount
> > of
> > > > > > > friction every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > time. I'm personally against this for the following
> > > > > reassons:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Some of the terms proposed are not industry
> > standard
> > > > and
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > potentially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > cause significant issue for non-english speakers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - For each change that is made can we guarantee
> that
> > we
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > not lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity of meaning, and then have revert the change
> > > down
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > line if
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > change causes a drop in usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Of what percentage of people is this truly an
> issue
> > > for
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > percentage isn't. Any change that has the potential
> > to
> > > > > cause
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > major
> > > > > > > > > > > > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in the community, there must be as close as
> possible
> > > to a
> > > > > > > majority,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > just from those that are vocal and active on the
> > > mailing
> > > > > > lists.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Disscustions on other groups are turning toxic, and
> > in
> > > > some
> > > > > > > cases are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > potentially leading to the collapse of these
> projects
> > > > where
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are being implemented with what appears to be
> without
> > > the
> > > > > > > agreement of
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > signifficant chunk of the community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - From a personal perspective, I sit on the autism
> > > > spectrum
> > > > > > > and have
> > > > > > > > > > > > grown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > up with people using words that are very offensive
> > and
> > > > have
> > > > > > > hurt me
> > > > > > > > > > > > badly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of having these words as offensive and
> > > > untouchable.
> > > > > > > Myself and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > others have instead made these words our own and
> made
> > > > them
> > > > > > > lose the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > negative connotations they have. As such, I do find
> > the
> > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > > > > disscustions deeply alarming and feels like they
> > start
> > > to
> > > > > > > border into
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > realm of censorship.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - One final point (and potentially controversial),
> A
> > > good
> > > > > > > chunk of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wording that is proposed to be changed. Is being
> done
> > > so
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "modern"/"street" definition of these words and not
> > the
> > > > > > actual
> > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Language should change and evolve to introduce
> > clarity,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > right now
> > > > > > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this change improve the clarity across the
> > engineering
> > > > > sector
> > > > > > > and I
> > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it won't.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Edward
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, 01:11 Andy LoPresto, <
> > > > > > > alopresto@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am a proponent of making this change and also
> > using
> > > > > > > allow/deny
> > > > > > > > > list,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > meddler-in-the-middle, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a blog [1] with easy instructions for
> > > executing
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > change in
> > > > > > > > > > > > git,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > although I don’t know if there is any
> > > > Apache-integration
> > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we would also need.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.hanselman.com/blog/EasilyRenameYourGitDefaultBranchFromMasterToMain.aspx
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andy LoPresto
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > alopresto@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > alopresto.apache@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > He/Him
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE
> 3C6E
> > > > F65B
> > > > > > > 2F7D EF69
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <
> > > > > > joe.witt@gmail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect it would be fairly easy to make this
> > > > change.
> > > > > We
> > > > > > > do, I
> > > > > > > > > > > think,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have whitelist/blacklist in there somewhere but
> > im
> > > > not
> > > > > > > sure how
> > > > > > > > > > > > involved.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:04 PM Tony Kurc <
> > > > > > > tkurc@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've seen the discussion started on other
> > > projects
> > > > > > > [1][2], so I
> > > > > > > > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kick off a discussion to determine whether
> this
> > > is
> > > > > > > something nifi
> > > > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look at too. Allen Wittenauer's post to yetus
> > > > > captures
> > > > > > > the why and
> > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the how, so rather than copy and pasting, you
> > can
> > > > > take
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > look at
> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > he's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > done. Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tony
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rd38afa9fb6c0dcd77d1a677f1152b7398b3bda93c9106b3393149d10%40%3Cdev.yetus.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0825eec0c84296bdab7cf898a987f06355443241ca02b2aaa51d3ef9%40%3Cdev.accumulo.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] rename master branch, look through code for other
related issues
Posted by Andy LoPresto <al...@apache.org>.
I will make a Jira for the key management references. I have already removed a large portion of the legacy terms from the proxy path handling and related documentation in [1].
[1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/4351
Andy LoPresto
alopresto@apache.org
alopresto.apache@gmail.com
He/Him
PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
> On Jul 6, 2020, at 8:21 PM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> After a quick review, in nifi, I wasn't able to find references to the
> properties Joe mentioned, but I did use crude recursive greps to look. A
> majority of the blacklist references were in wali in method names and log
> messages. Picking a more useful term in wali would probably make sense.
> I'll make a jira, but we'd need to be a bit more deliberate about when that
> change could happen, no? Long story short, since assumptions were maybe a
> bit off (i.e. not an additive change), I think a later release may make
> sense.
>
> There was a blacklist property in nifi-cpp. I'll make a jira and work on a
> pr for that.
>
> Most prevalent in my grep analysis related to master/slave were carrying
> over terms from dependencies (e.g. MySQL, zookeeper, or third-party libs in
> nifi-cpp) and "master key" crypt related stuff.
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020, 6:02 PM Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike,
>> I did a quick check to see if anyone had done a jira or pr for #2, so I'll
>> take a stab at doing that today.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:27 PM Mike Thomsen <mi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Didn't see any commits or PRs for any of these yet. Do we want to consider
>>> these blockers for 1.12 or hold off until a post 1.12 release?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:48 PM Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not that I'm aware of. All this so far just looks really easy to deal
>>>> with.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:46 AM Mike Thomsen <mi...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Out of curiosity... are there any cases you've found where we might
>>> have
>>>> a
>>>>> term misalignment with what another product calls them? Like we might
>>>> have
>>>>> primary/replica and the supported system uses master/slave?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:32 AM Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...additional note after reviewing the presence of
>>>> 'whitelist/blacklist'
>>>>> I
>>>>>> remain of the view what we need to do here is easy. There is
>>> minimal
>>>> API
>>>>>> impact and it appears to be just the nifi.properties file for a
>>>> property.
>>>>>> Other code changes do not appear to be API related and seem fair
>>> game
>>>>> now.
>>>>>> We can easily support the old naming and create a different property
>>>> name
>>>>>> for the properties file case. We dont need to wait for any major
>>>> release
>>>>>> as far as I can tell
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 4:47 PM Mike Thomsen <
>>> mikerthomsen@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think just shooting for #1 right away makes sense, but #2 will
>>> need
>>>>> to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> done as part of a major release. I think we go all-in to be
>>>> consistent
>>>>> on
>>>>>>> allow/block vs white/black and similar changes that are needed. We
>>>>> should
>>>>>>> also avoid things like the proposal to use "allowlist/denylist"
>>> that
>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> teams are debating since that is just a pointless spawning of
>>>>> neologisms
>>>>>>> for the sake of creating them. The best approach is to use clear,
>>>>> concise
>>>>>>> language that is preferably as limited on jargon as possible, and
>>> I
>>>>> feel
>>>>>>> like those teams are missing the mark on that. If we do find
>>> language
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> needs to be changed in descriptor name fields, I think it would
>>> also
>>>>>>> prevent any problems by making part of the messaging being that
>>> those
>>>>>>> changes are non-negotiable as they represent real potential
>>> breakage
>>>> to
>>>>>>> users. I think most folks would be fine with that, but it might
>>> need
>>>> to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> spelled out for some that there is a balance that has to be
>>>> maintained
>>>>>>> until a proper transition can take place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 6:23 PM Tony Kurc <tk...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This discussion has died down quite a bit. I got the impression
>>>> there
>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> at least majority support, although not consensus, for Joe's two
>>>>>>> proposals
>>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> #1 ( s/master/main/ ) is probably the most straightforward -
>>> change
>>>>>>>> developer docs and make the necessary repository changes. Can be
>>>> done
>>>>>>>> seemingly independent of software releases. Is it time for
>>> jiras on
>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>>> My sense is that 'main' appears to be a common term that
>>> projects
>>>>>> appear
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> be gravitating to, but that discussion still abounds. This
>>> comment
>>>>> [2]
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> the git project's mailing list hurt my head quite a bit, but
>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>> reinforced that main makes a whole lot more sense than master,
>>> as
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>> pointed out [3].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> #2 is a bit less straightforward, going to require a code change
>>>> and
>>>>>>> figure
>>>>>>>> out where that fits with the versioning scheme commitments [4].
>>> Do
>>>> we
>>>>>>>> support both allow/block (or deny?) along with white/black in a
>>>> minor
>>>>>>>> release, and then prune white/black on next major release?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r6c133a31f882d3c818e63fa44dbc451f61d423a22dbe72396483127b%40%3Cdev.nifi.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/CANgJU+Ut+ANPHud1JQw1Wo+zb37_=EWx-vgap6FGC+T=-dzn4A@mail.gmail.com/
>>>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r86a9a390f023a0298488084bdcb4caaa4bedfe406f1c86a1ca4bdac3%40%3Cdev.nifi.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>> 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Version+Scheme+and+API+Compatibility
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:36 PM Otto Fowler <
>>>> ottobackwards@gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As long as it isn’t renamed to zeek or something, I think we
>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>> it and not look back.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On June 18, 2020 at 19:05:38, Mike Thomsen (
>>>> mikerthomsen@gmail.com
>>>>> )
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As teammates and friends, it was an easy change, even if
>>> code
>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> involved. And I assume much easier than having the courage to
>>> ask
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ironically, around the same time I had a colleague who was
>>> like
>>>> the
>>>>>>> evil
>>>>>>>>> opposite of that. Friend is the last word any of us would use
>>> to
>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>>>> him. He was a cautionary tale in why teams have to also
>>> maintain
>>>>>>> defense
>>>>>>>>> mechanisms against toxic people who exploit empathy as a power
>>>>> play;
>>>>>>>> it's a
>>>>>>>>> common tactic of abusers/toxic people to make demands on
>>> people
>>>> to
>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>> their behavior to see how compliant they are. That former
>>>>> colleague,
>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> got them talking about their views, could wax eloquent about
>>>>>> tolerance,
>>>>>>>>> inclusiveness, etc. and then without a hint of irony turn
>>> around
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> wage a
>>>>>>>>> one man war on everyone else.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:53 AM Joey Frazee <
>>>>> joey.frazee@icloud.com
>>>>>>>>> .invalid>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I’m repeating this from elsewhere but I was on a team 7
>>> years
>>>> ago
>>>>>>>> where a
>>>>>>>>>> teammate asked us to stop using master and slave
>>> terminology,
>>>>> even
>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>> alone, because it made them uncomfortable. I can’t estimate
>>> how
>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> feeling is but this isn’t a theoretical exercise. As
>>> teammates
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> friends,
>>>>>>>>>> it was an easy change, even if code was involved. And I
>>> assume
>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>> easier
>>>>>>>>>> than having the courage to ask for it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I’d say it’s also important to note that “but that’s not the
>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>>> intended word sense” doesn’t alleviate that alienating
>>>>> experience.
>>>>>>>> While
>>>>>>>>>> potentially a matter of fact of the intent for some uses, “I
>>>> want
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>> that word” is pretty unfriendly stacked against “that makes
>>> me
>>>>> feel
>>>>>>>>>> unwelcome”.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Two guidelines from the code of conduct seem particularly
>>>>> apropos:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Be empathetic, welcoming, friendly, and patient
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Be careful in the words that we choose
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AFAICT there’s not an escape hatch for code, tools, or
>>> effort.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -joey
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2020, 10:05 AM -0500, Edward Armes <
>>>>>>> edward.armes@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with this, and maybe that is the potential the
>>> step
>>>>>> forward
>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>> is: issue a statement is issued saying something like this
>>>> is a
>>>>>>>> complex
>>>>>>>>>>> issue and instead of making changes that could cause
>>> further
>>>>>>> division
>>>>>>>>>>> within the community we are looking for those that are
>>>>> interested
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> help
>>>>>>>>>>> form a constructive working group that will help influence
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> resolve
>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> of these issues in a positive way for all not only for
>>>> project
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>> within the wider group of apache projects.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Edward
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, 11:17 Uwe@Moosheimer.com, <
>>>>>> Uwe@moosheimer.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Language is always changing and the meaning of words is
>>>>>> changing,
>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes positively and sometimes negatively.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that now is time for change again and we should
>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>> of phrases and meanings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course we should change "Master Branch" to "Main
>>>> Branch".
>>>>>>>>>>>> But I also think that we shouldn't just make quick
>>> changes
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> opportune and hastily change a few words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An example: We could change Master/Slave to
>>>> Leader/Follower.
>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> a perfect choice for most people in the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In German Leader is the English word for "Führer". And
>>> it
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> precisely
>>>>>>>>>>>> this word that we in Germany do not actually want to use
>>>> for
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What I mean is that every country and every group (e.g.
>>>>>> religion
>>>>>>>>> etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>>> has its own history and certain words or phrases are
>>> just
>>>>> not a
>>>>>>>>> perfect
>>>>>>>>>>>> choice.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We should try to go the ethically correct way worldwide.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This concerns the adaptation of current words and
>>> phrases
>>>>> with
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> view
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> all: in English, Indian, Chinese, German etc. but also
>>> for
>>>>>>>> indigenous
>>>>>>>>>>>> peoples, different religions etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And cultural differences should also be taken into
>>> account.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What I would wish for:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache.org should set up an "Ethics Board". A group of
>>>> people
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> different genders, all colors, religions and from
>>> different
>>>>>>>> countries
>>>>>>>>>>>> and cultures all over our world.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This Ethics Board should find good and for no one
>>>>>> discriminating
>>>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>>>>>>> or phrases for all the areas that stand out today as
>>>>> offensive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And it would be nice if not only computer scientists
>>>>>>> participated,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> also ethicists, philosophers, engineers, various
>>> religious
>>>>>>> people,
>>>>>>>>>>>> chemists, biologists, physicists, sociologists, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And this Council should set binding targets for all
>>>> projects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 18.06.2020 um 09:36 schrieb Pierre Villard:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my perspective this should be an issue for the
>>>> entire
>>>>>>>>> community.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to identify an issue that directly affects
>>> another
>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one’s self is the definition of privilege. If I can
>>>> look
>>>>> at
>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>> the use
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these words in someone’s daily life or career
>>> impacts
>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>> negatively,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the change would not harm me at all, I see that as a
>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>> part. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the desire to hear from the silent
>>> majority,
>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participation and discussion on the mailing list is
>>> the
>>>>>> exact
>>>>>>>>>> measure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by the Apache process for participation in
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> community.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who speak here are the ones who will have a voice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could not agree more with the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le jeu. 18 juin 2020 à 04:29, Tony Kurc <
>>>> tkurc@apache.org>
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> écrit
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose I was a bit remiss in not unwinding and/or
>>>>>>>> summarizing
>>>>>>>>>> some of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what was in that yetus thread to prime the
>>> discussion,
>>>>> but
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy is mentioning is expanded on a bit in this ietf
>>>>>> document
>>>>>>>>> [1],
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> linked in one of the articles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 10:02 PM Andy LoPresto <
>>>>>>>>> alopresto@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Edward, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’ll
>>>> reply
>>>>>>>> inline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Some of the terms proposed are not industry
>>>>> standard
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause significant issue for non-english
>>> speakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I actually believe making these changes will
>>>> _improve_
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> clarity for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-english speakers. “Whitelist” and “blacklist”
>>>>> confer
>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>> inherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to mean allow and deny other than connotative
>>> biases.
>>>>>>> “Allow”
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> “deny”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly indicate the verb that is happening.
>>>> Another
>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naming. “Masters” don’t have “branches”. “Trunks”
>>> do.
>>>>>> These
>>>>>>>>>> terms make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _more_ sense for a non-English speaker than the
>>>> current
>>>>>>>> terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - For each change that is made can we guarantee
>>>> that
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> not lose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarity of meaning, and then have revert the
>>> change
>>>>>> down
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> line if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change causes a drop in usage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t expect the community will opt to change
>>> the
>>>> new
>>>>>>> terms
>>>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with negative connotations in the future. If
>>> there is
>>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this thread will provide good historical context
>>> for
>>>>> why
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> decision
>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made to change it, just as the mailing list
>>>> discussions
>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Of what percentage of people is this truly an
>>>> issue
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> percentage isn't. Any change that has the
>>> potential
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> split
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the community, there must be as close as
>>>> possible
>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>>> majority,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just from those that are vocal and active on the
>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>> lists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Disscustions on other groups are turning toxic,
>>> and
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> cases are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially leading to the collapse of these
>>>> projects
>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are being implemented with what appears to be
>>>> without
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> agreement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signifficant chunk of the community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my perspective this should be an issue for the
>>>>> entire
>>>>>>>>>> community.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to identify an issue that directly affects
>>>> another
>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>>> but not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one’s self is the definition of privilege. If I
>>> can
>>>>> look
>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>> the use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these words in someone’s daily life or career
>>> impacts
>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>> negatively,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the change would not harm me at all, I see that
>>> as a
>>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>> part.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the desire to hear from the silent
>>>> majority,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participation and discussion on the mailing list
>>> is
>>>> the
>>>>>>> exact
>>>>>>>>>> measure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by the Apache process for participation
>>> in
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> community.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who speak here are the ones who will have a voice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - From a personal perspective, I sit on the
>>> autism
>>>>>>> spectrum
>>>>>>>>>> and have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up with people using words that are very
>>> offensive
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> hurt me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> badly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of having these words as offensive and
>>>>>>> untouchable.
>>>>>>>>>> Myself and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others have instead made these words our own and
>>>> made
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>> lose the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> negative connotations they have. As such, I do
>>> find
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disscustions deeply alarming and feels like they
>>>>> start
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> border into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realm of censorship.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it’s admirable that you have responded to
>>>>>> negative
>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstances
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that way. I also recognize that not everyone
>>> has
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> opportunity.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can take these actions as a community to improve
>>> the
>>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am in favor of that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - One final point (and potentially
>>> controversial),
>>>> A
>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>> chunk of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording that is proposed to be changed. Is being
>>>> done
>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "modern"/"street" definition of these words and
>>> not
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language should change and evolve to introduce
>>>>> clarity,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> right now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this change improve the clarity across the
>>>>> engineering
>>>>>>>> sector
>>>>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it won't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll paraphrase Emily Kager here with “developers
>>>> spend
>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> inordinate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of time and energy arguing about the
>>> meaning
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> semantics of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variable and method names, but pretend
>>> exclusionary
>>>>> terms
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] If we can expend that much energy deciding if
>>> a
>>>>>> method
>>>>>>>>>> creates vs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builds vs. forms an imaginary concept like a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LibraryFrameworkWrapperDecorator, I refuse to
>>> concede
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> can and
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact should do so with the terms that actually
>>> affect
>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members’ lives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/EmilyKager/status/1271102865889734656
>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/EmilyKager/status/1271102865889734656>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy LoPresto
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alopresto@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alopresto.apache@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He/Him
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE
>>> 3C6E
>>>>> F65B
>>>>>>> 2F7D
>>>>>>>>>> EF69
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 6:43 PM, Edward Armes <
>>>>>>>>>> edward.armes@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a difficult issue and causes no small
>>>> amount
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> friction every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. I'm personally against this for the
>>> following
>>>>>>>> reassons:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Some of the terms proposed are not industry
>>>>> standard
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause significant issue for non-english
>>> speakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - For each change that is made can we guarantee
>>>> that
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> not lose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarity of meaning, and then have revert the
>>> change
>>>>>> down
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> line if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change causes a drop in usage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Of what percentage of people is this truly an
>>>> issue
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> percentage isn't. Any change that has the
>>> potential
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> split
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the community, there must be as close as
>>>> possible
>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>>> majority,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just from those that are vocal and active on the
>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>> lists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Disscustions on other groups are turning toxic,
>>> and
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> cases are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially leading to the collapse of these
>>>> projects
>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are being implemented with what appears to be
>>>> without
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> agreement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signifficant chunk of the community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - From a personal perspective, I sit on the
>>> autism
>>>>>>> spectrum
>>>>>>>>>> and have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up with people using words that are very
>>> offensive
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> hurt me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> badly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of having these words as offensive and
>>>>>>> untouchable.
>>>>>>>>>> Myself and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others have instead made these words our own and
>>>> made
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>> lose the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> negative connotations they have. As such, I do
>>> find
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disscustions deeply alarming and feels like they
>>>>> start
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> border into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realm of censorship.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - One final point (and potentially
>>> controversial),
>>>> A
>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>> chunk of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording that is proposed to be changed. Is being
>>>> done
>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "modern"/"street" definition of these words and
>>> not
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Language should change and evolve to introduce
>>>>> clarity,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> right now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this change improve the clarity across the
>>>>> engineering
>>>>>>>> sector
>>>>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it won't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Edward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, 01:11 Andy LoPresto, <
>>>>>>>>>> alopresto@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am a proponent of making this change and
>>> also
>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>> allow/deny
>>>>>>>>>>>> list,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meddler-in-the-middle, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is a blog [1] with easy instructions for
>>>>>> executing
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> change in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> git,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> although I don’t know if there is any
>>>>>>> Apache-integration
>>>>>>>>>> specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we would also need.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://www.hanselman.com/blog/EasilyRenameYourGitDefaultBranchFromMasterToMain.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy LoPresto
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alopresto@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alopresto.apache@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He/Him
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE
>>>> 3C6E
>>>>>>> F65B
>>>>>>>>>> 2F7D EF69
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <
>>>>>>>>> joe.witt@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect it would be fairly easy to make
>>> this
>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>> do, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have whitelist/blacklist in there somewhere
>>> but
>>>>> im
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> sure how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:04 PM Tony Kurc <
>>>>>>>>>> tkurc@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen the discussion started on other
>>>>>> projects
>>>>>>>>>> [1][2], so I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kick off a discussion to determine whether
>>>> this
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> something nifi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look at too. Allen Wittenauer's post to
>>> yetus
>>>>>>>> captures
>>>>>>>>>> the why and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the how, so rather than copy and pasting,
>>> you
>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> look at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done. Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rd38afa9fb6c0dcd77d1a677f1152b7398b3bda93c9106b3393149d10%40%3Cdev.yetus.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0825eec0c84296bdab7cf898a987f06355443241ca02b2aaa51d3ef9%40%3Cdev.accumulo.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] rename master branch, look through code for other
related issues
Posted by Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>.
After a quick review, in nifi, I wasn't able to find references to the
properties Joe mentioned, but I did use crude recursive greps to look. A
majority of the blacklist references were in wali in method names and log
messages. Picking a more useful term in wali would probably make sense.
I'll make a jira, but we'd need to be a bit more deliberate about when that
change could happen, no? Long story short, since assumptions were maybe a
bit off (i.e. not an additive change), I think a later release may make
sense.
There was a blacklist property in nifi-cpp. I'll make a jira and work on a
pr for that.
Most prevalent in my grep analysis related to master/slave were carrying
over terms from dependencies (e.g. MySQL, zookeeper, or third-party libs in
nifi-cpp) and "master key" crypt related stuff.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020, 6:02 PM Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike,
> I did a quick check to see if anyone had done a jira or pr for #2, so I'll
> take a stab at doing that today.
>
> Tony
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:27 PM Mike Thomsen <mi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Didn't see any commits or PRs for any of these yet. Do we want to consider
>> these blockers for 1.12 or hold off until a post 1.12 release?
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:48 PM Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Not that I'm aware of. All this so far just looks really easy to deal
>> > with.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:46 AM Mike Thomsen <mi...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Out of curiosity... are there any cases you've found where we might
>> have
>> > a
>> > > term misalignment with what another product calls them? Like we might
>> > have
>> > > primary/replica and the supported system uses master/slave?
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:32 AM Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > ...additional note after reviewing the presence of
>> > 'whitelist/blacklist'
>> > > I
>> > > > remain of the view what we need to do here is easy. There is
>> minimal
>> > API
>> > > > impact and it appears to be just the nifi.properties file for a
>> > property.
>> > > > Other code changes do not appear to be API related and seem fair
>> game
>> > > now.
>> > > > We can easily support the old naming and create a different property
>> > name
>> > > > for the properties file case. We dont need to wait for any major
>> > release
>> > > > as far as I can tell
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 4:47 PM Mike Thomsen <
>> mikerthomsen@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I think just shooting for #1 right away makes sense, but #2 will
>> need
>> > > to
>> > > > be
>> > > > > done as part of a major release. I think we go all-in to be
>> > consistent
>> > > on
>> > > > > allow/block vs white/black and similar changes that are needed. We
>> > > should
>> > > > > also avoid things like the proposal to use "allowlist/denylist"
>> that
>> > > > other
>> > > > > teams are debating since that is just a pointless spawning of
>> > > neologisms
>> > > > > for the sake of creating them. The best approach is to use clear,
>> > > concise
>> > > > > language that is preferably as limited on jargon as possible, and
>> I
>> > > feel
>> > > > > like those teams are missing the mark on that. If we do find
>> language
>> > > > that
>> > > > > needs to be changed in descriptor name fields, I think it would
>> also
>> > > > > prevent any problems by making part of the messaging being that
>> those
>> > > > > changes are non-negotiable as they represent real potential
>> breakage
>> > to
>> > > > > users. I think most folks would be fine with that, but it might
>> need
>> > to
>> > > > be
>> > > > > spelled out for some that there is a balance that has to be
>> > maintained
>> > > > > until a proper transition can take place.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 6:23 PM Tony Kurc <tk...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > This discussion has died down quite a bit. I got the impression
>> > there
>> > > > was
>> > > > > > at least majority support, although not consensus, for Joe's two
>> > > > > proposals
>> > > > > > [1].
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > #1 ( s/master/main/ ) is probably the most straightforward -
>> change
>> > > > > > developer docs and make the necessary repository changes. Can be
>> > done
>> > > > > > seemingly independent of software releases. Is it time for
>> jiras on
>> > > > that?
>> > > > > > My sense is that 'main' appears to be a common term that
>> projects
>> > > > appear
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > be gravitating to, but that discussion still abounds. This
>> comment
>> > > [2]
>> > > > on
>> > > > > > the git project's mailing list hurt my head quite a bit, but
>> > > definitely
>> > > > > > reinforced that main makes a whole lot more sense than master,
>> as
>> > > Andy
>> > > > > > pointed out [3].
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > #2 is a bit less straightforward, going to require a code change
>> > and
>> > > > > figure
>> > > > > > out where that fits with the versioning scheme commitments [4].
>> Do
>> > we
>> > > > > > support both allow/block (or deny?) along with white/black in a
>> > minor
>> > > > > > release, and then prune white/black on next major release?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 1.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r6c133a31f882d3c818e63fa44dbc451f61d423a22dbe72396483127b%40%3Cdev.nifi.apache.org%3E
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 2.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/CANgJU+Ut+ANPHud1JQw1Wo+zb37_=EWx-vgap6FGC+T=-dzn4A@mail.gmail.com/
>> > > > > > 3.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r86a9a390f023a0298488084bdcb4caaa4bedfe406f1c86a1ca4bdac3%40%3Cdev.nifi.apache.org%3E
>> > > > > > 4.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Version+Scheme+and+API+Compatibility
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:36 PM Otto Fowler <
>> > ottobackwards@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > As long as it isn’t renamed to zeek or something, I think we
>> > > should
>> > > > > > change
>> > > > > > > it and not look back.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On June 18, 2020 at 19:05:38, Mike Thomsen (
>> > mikerthomsen@gmail.com
>> > > )
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > As teammates and friends, it was an easy change, even if
>> code
>> > was
>> > > > > > > involved. And I assume much easier than having the courage to
>> ask
>> > > for
>> > > > > it.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Ironically, around the same time I had a colleague who was
>> like
>> > the
>> > > > > evil
>> > > > > > > opposite of that. Friend is the last word any of us would use
>> to
>> > > > > describe
>> > > > > > > him. He was a cautionary tale in why teams have to also
>> maintain
>> > > > > defense
>> > > > > > > mechanisms against toxic people who exploit empathy as a power
>> > > play;
>> > > > > > it's a
>> > > > > > > common tactic of abusers/toxic people to make demands on
>> people
>> > to
>> > > > > change
>> > > > > > > their behavior to see how compliant they are. That former
>> > > colleague,
>> > > > if
>> > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > got them talking about their views, could wax eloquent about
>> > > > tolerance,
>> > > > > > > inclusiveness, etc. and then without a hint of irony turn
>> around
>> > > and
>> > > > > > wage a
>> > > > > > > one man war on everyone else.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:53 AM Joey Frazee <
>> > > joey.frazee@icloud.com
>> > > > > > > .invalid>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > +1
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I’m repeating this from elsewhere but I was on a team 7
>> years
>> > ago
>> > > > > > where a
>> > > > > > > > teammate asked us to stop using master and slave
>> terminology,
>> > > even
>> > > > > > master
>> > > > > > > > alone, because it made them uncomfortable. I can’t estimate
>> how
>> > > > > common
>> > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > feeling is but this isn’t a theoretical exercise. As
>> teammates
>> > > and
>> > > > > > > friends,
>> > > > > > > > it was an easy change, even if code was involved. And I
>> assume
>> > > much
>> > > > > > > easier
>> > > > > > > > than having the courage to ask for it.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I’d say it’s also important to note that “but that’s not the
>> > > > original
>> > > > > > > > intended word sense” doesn’t alleviate that alienating
>> > > experience.
>> > > > > > While
>> > > > > > > > potentially a matter of fact of the intent for some uses, “I
>> > want
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > that word” is pretty unfriendly stacked against “that makes
>> me
>> > > feel
>> > > > > > > > unwelcome”.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Two guidelines from the code of conduct seem particularly
>> > > apropos:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > - Be empathetic, welcoming, friendly, and patient
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > - Be careful in the words that we choose
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > AFAICT there’s not an escape hatch for code, tools, or
>> effort.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > -joey
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 2020, 10:05 AM -0500, Edward Armes <
>> > > > > edward.armes@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >,
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > I agree with this, and maybe that is the potential the
>> step
>> > > > forward
>> > > > > > > here
>> > > > > > > > > is: issue a statement is issued saying something like this
>> > is a
>> > > > > > complex
>> > > > > > > > > issue and instead of making changes that could cause
>> further
>> > > > > division
>> > > > > > > > > within the community we are looking for those that are
>> > > interested
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > help
>> > > > > > > > > form a constructive working group that will help influence
>> > and
>> > > > > > resolve
>> > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > > of these issues in a positive way for all not only for
>> > project
>> > > > but
>> > > > > > also
>> > > > > > > > > within the wider group of apache projects.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Edward
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, 11:17 Uwe@Moosheimer.com, <
>> > > > Uwe@moosheimer.com
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Language is always changing and the meaning of words is
>> > > > changing,
>> > > > > > > > > > sometimes positively and sometimes negatively.
>> > > > > > > > > > I think that now is time for change again and we should
>> > > discuss
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > > > of phrases and meanings.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Of course we should change "Master Branch" to "Main
>> > Branch".
>> > > > > > > > > > But I also think that we shouldn't just make quick
>> changes
>> > > > > because
>> > > > > > > it's
>> > > > > > > > > > opportune and hastily change a few words.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > An example: We could change Master/Slave to
>> > Leader/Follower.
>> > > > This
>> > > > > > may
>> > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > a perfect choice for most people in the world.
>> > > > > > > > > > In German Leader is the English word for "Führer". And
>> it
>> > is
>> > > > > > > precisely
>> > > > > > > > > > this word that we in Germany do not actually want to use
>> > for
>> > > > it.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > What I mean is that every country and every group (e.g.
>> > > > religion
>> > > > > > > etc.)
>> > > > > > > > > > has its own history and certain words or phrases are
>> just
>> > > not a
>> > > > > > > perfect
>> > > > > > > > > > choice.
>> > > > > > > > > > We should try to go the ethically correct way worldwide.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > This concerns the adaptation of current words and
>> phrases
>> > > with
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > view
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > all: in English, Indian, Chinese, German etc. but also
>> for
>> > > > > > indigenous
>> > > > > > > > > > peoples, different religions etc.
>> > > > > > > > > > And cultural differences should also be taken into
>> account.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > What I would wish for:
>> > > > > > > > > > Apache.org should set up an "Ethics Board". A group of
>> > people
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > different genders, all colors, religions and from
>> different
>> > > > > > countries
>> > > > > > > > > > and cultures all over our world.
>> > > > > > > > > > This Ethics Board should find good and for no one
>> > > > discriminating
>> > > > > > > words
>> > > > > > > > > > or phrases for all the areas that stand out today as
>> > > offensive.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > And it would be nice if not only computer scientists
>> > > > > participated,
>> > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > also ethicists, philosophers, engineers, various
>> religious
>> > > > > people,
>> > > > > > > > > > chemists, biologists, physicists, sociologists, etc.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > And this Council should set binding targets for all
>> > projects.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Am 18.06.2020 um 09:36 schrieb Pierre Villard:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > In my perspective this should be an issue for the
>> > entire
>> > > > > > > community.
>> > > > > > > > > > Being
>> > > > > > > > > > > > able to identify an issue that directly affects
>> another
>> > > > > person
>> > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > one’s self is the definition of privilege. If I can
>> > look
>> > > at
>> > > > > how
>> > > > > > > > the use
>> > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > these words in someone’s daily life or career
>> impacts
>> > > them
>> > > > > > > > negatively,
>> > > > > > > > > > > when
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the change would not harm me at all, I see that as a
>> > > > failure
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > > my
>> > > > > > > > > > part. I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > understand the desire to hear from the silent
>> majority,
>> > > but
>> > > > > > > active
>> > > > > > > > > > > > participation and discussion on the mailing list is
>> the
>> > > > exact
>> > > > > > > > measure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > described by the Apache process for participation in
>> > the
>> > > > > > > community.
>> > > > > > > > > > Those
>> > > > > > > > > > > > who speak here are the ones who will have a voice.
>> > > > > > > > > > > I could not agree more with the above.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Le jeu. 18 juin 2020 à 04:29, Tony Kurc <
>> > tkurc@apache.org>
>> > > a
>> > > > > > écrit
>> > > > > > > :
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose I was a bit remiss in not unwinding and/or
>> > > > > > summarizing
>> > > > > > > > some of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > what was in that yetus thread to prime the
>> discussion,
>> > > but
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Andy is mentioning is expanded on a bit in this ietf
>> > > > document
>> > > > > > > [1],
>> > > > > > > > > > which is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > linked in one of the articles.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.
>> > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 10:02 PM Andy LoPresto <
>> > > > > > > alopresto@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Edward, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’ll
>> > reply
>> > > > > > inline.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Some of the terms proposed are not industry
>> > > standard
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > may
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > potentially
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cause significant issue for non-english
>> speakers.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I actually believe making these changes will
>> > _improve_
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > clarity for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > non-english speakers. “Whitelist” and “blacklist”
>> > > confer
>> > > > no
>> > > > > > > > inherent
>> > > > > > > > > > > > reason
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > to mean allow and deny other than connotative
>> biases.
>> > > > > “Allow”
>> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > “deny”
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > explicitly indicate the verb that is happening.
>> > Another
>> > > > > > example
>> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > branch
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > naming. “Masters” don’t have “branches”. “Trunks”
>> do.
>> > > > These
>> > > > > > > > terms make
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > _more_ sense for a non-English speaker than the
>> > current
>> > > > > > terms.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - For each change that is made can we guarantee
>> > that
>> > > we
>> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > not lose
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity of meaning, and then have revert the
>> change
>> > > > down
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > line if
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > change causes a drop in usage.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don’t expect the community will opt to change
>> the
>> > new
>> > > > > terms
>> > > > > > > > back to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > ones
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > with negative connotations in the future. If
>> there is
>> > > > > > > discussion
>> > > > > > > > about
>> > > > > > > > > > > > it,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > this thread will provide good historical context
>> for
>> > > why
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > decision
>> > > > > > > > > > was
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > made to change it, just as the mailing list
>> > discussions
>> > > > do
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > other
>> > > > > > > > > > code
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Of what percentage of people is this truly an
>> > issue
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > percentage isn't. Any change that has the
>> potential
>> > > to
>> > > > > > cause
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > major
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > split
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the community, there must be as close as
>> > possible
>> > > > to a
>> > > > > > > > majority,
>> > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > just from those that are vocal and active on the
>> > > > mailing
>> > > > > > > lists.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Disscustions on other groups are turning toxic,
>> and
>> > > in
>> > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > cases are
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > potentially leading to the collapse of these
>> > projects
>> > > > > where
>> > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are being implemented with what appears to be
>> > without
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > agreement of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > signifficant chunk of the community.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > In my perspective this should be an issue for the
>> > > entire
>> > > > > > > > community.
>> > > > > > > > > > Being
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > able to identify an issue that directly affects
>> > another
>> > > > > > person
>> > > > > > > > but not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > one’s self is the definition of privilege. If I
>> can
>> > > look
>> > > > at
>> > > > > > how
>> > > > > > > > the use
>> > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > these words in someone’s daily life or career
>> impacts
>> > > > them
>> > > > > > > > negatively,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > when
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > the change would not harm me at all, I see that
>> as a
>> > > > > failure
>> > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > my
>> > > > > > > > > > part.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > understand the desire to hear from the silent
>> > majority,
>> > > > but
>> > > > > > > > active
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > participation and discussion on the mailing list
>> is
>> > the
>> > > > > exact
>> > > > > > > > measure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > described by the Apache process for participation
>> in
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > > community.
>> > > > > > > > > > Those
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > who speak here are the ones who will have a voice.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - From a personal perspective, I sit on the
>> autism
>> > > > > spectrum
>> > > > > > > > and have
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > grown
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > up with people using words that are very
>> offensive
>> > > and
>> > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > hurt me
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > badly.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of having these words as offensive and
>> > > > > untouchable.
>> > > > > > > > Myself and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > others have instead made these words our own and
>> > made
>> > > > > them
>> > > > > > > > lose the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > negative connotations they have. As such, I do
>> find
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > current
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > disscustions deeply alarming and feels like they
>> > > start
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > border into
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > realm of censorship.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it’s admirable that you have responded to
>> > > > negative
>> > > > > > > > > > circumstances
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > in that way. I also recognize that not everyone
>> has
>> > > that
>> > > > > > > > opportunity.
>> > > > > > > > > > If
>> > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > can take these actions as a community to improve
>> the
>> > > > > > experience
>> > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > others,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am in favor of that.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - One final point (and potentially
>> controversial),
>> > A
>> > > > good
>> > > > > > > > chunk of the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wording that is proposed to be changed. Is being
>> > done
>> > > > so
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "modern"/"street" definition of these words and
>> not
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > actual
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Language should change and evolve to introduce
>> > > clarity,
>> > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > right now
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > does
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this change improve the clarity across the
>> > > engineering
>> > > > > > sector
>> > > > > > > > and I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > believe
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it won't.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I’ll paraphrase Emily Kager here with “developers
>> > spend
>> > > > an
>> > > > > > > > inordinate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > amount of time and energy arguing about the
>> meaning
>> > and
>> > > > > > > > semantics of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > variable and method names, but pretend
>> exclusionary
>> > > terms
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > > meaningless.”
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] If we can expend that much energy deciding if
>> a
>> > > > method
>> > > > > > > > creates vs.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > builds vs. forms an imaginary concept like a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > LibraryFrameworkWrapperDecorator, I refuse to
>> concede
>> > > > that
>> > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > can and
>> > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > fact should do so with the terms that actually
>> affect
>> > > our
>> > > > > > > > community
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > members’ lives.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > https://twitter.com/EmilyKager/status/1271102865889734656
>> > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > https://twitter.com/EmilyKager/status/1271102865889734656>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andy LoPresto
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > alopresto@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > alopresto.apache@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > He/Him
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE
>> 3C6E
>> > > F65B
>> > > > > 2F7D
>> > > > > > > > EF69
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 6:43 PM, Edward Armes <
>> > > > > > > > edward.armes@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a difficult issue and causes no small
>> > amount
>> > > of
>> > > > > > > > friction every
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > time. I'm personally against this for the
>> following
>> > > > > > reassons:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Some of the terms proposed are not industry
>> > > standard
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > may
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > potentially
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cause significant issue for non-english
>> speakers.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - For each change that is made can we guarantee
>> > that
>> > > we
>> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > not lose
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity of meaning, and then have revert the
>> change
>> > > > down
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > line if
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > change causes a drop in usage.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Of what percentage of people is this truly an
>> > issue
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > percentage isn't. Any change that has the
>> potential
>> > > to
>> > > > > > cause
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > major
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > split
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the community, there must be as close as
>> > possible
>> > > > to a
>> > > > > > > > majority,
>> > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > just from those that are vocal and active on the
>> > > > mailing
>> > > > > > > lists.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Disscustions on other groups are turning toxic,
>> and
>> > > in
>> > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > cases are
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > potentially leading to the collapse of these
>> > projects
>> > > > > where
>> > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are being implemented with what appears to be
>> > without
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > agreement of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > signifficant chunk of the community.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - From a personal perspective, I sit on the
>> autism
>> > > > > spectrum
>> > > > > > > > and have
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > grown
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > up with people using words that are very
>> offensive
>> > > and
>> > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > hurt me
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > badly.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of having these words as offensive and
>> > > > > untouchable.
>> > > > > > > > Myself and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > others have instead made these words our own and
>> > made
>> > > > > them
>> > > > > > > > lose the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > negative connotations they have. As such, I do
>> find
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > current
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > disscustions deeply alarming and feels like they
>> > > start
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > border into
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > realm of censorship.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - One final point (and potentially
>> controversial),
>> > A
>> > > > good
>> > > > > > > > chunk of the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wording that is proposed to be changed. Is being
>> > done
>> > > > so
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "modern"/"street" definition of these words and
>> not
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > actual
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Language should change and evolve to introduce
>> > > clarity,
>> > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > right now
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > does
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this change improve the clarity across the
>> > > engineering
>> > > > > > sector
>> > > > > > > > and I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > believe
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it won't.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edward
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, 01:11 Andy LoPresto, <
>> > > > > > > > alopresto@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am a proponent of making this change and
>> also
>> > > using
>> > > > > > > > allow/deny
>> > > > > > > > > > list,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meddler-in-the-middle, etc.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a blog [1] with easy instructions for
>> > > > executing
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > change in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > git,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > although I don’t know if there is any
>> > > > > Apache-integration
>> > > > > > > > specific
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we would also need.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://www.hanselman.com/blog/EasilyRenameYourGitDefaultBranchFromMasterToMain.aspx
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andy LoPresto
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alopresto@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alopresto.apache@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He/Him
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE
>> > 3C6E
>> > > > > F65B
>> > > > > > > > 2F7D EF69
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <
>> > > > > > > joe.witt@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect it would be fairly easy to make
>> this
>> > > > > change.
>> > > > > > We
>> > > > > > > > do, I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > think,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have whitelist/blacklist in there somewhere
>> but
>> > > im
>> > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > sure how
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > involved.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:04 PM Tony Kurc <
>> > > > > > > > tkurc@apache.org> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've seen the discussion started on other
>> > > > projects
>> > > > > > > > [1][2], so I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > wanted
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kick off a discussion to determine whether
>> > this
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > > > something nifi
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > could
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look at too. Allen Wittenauer's post to
>> yetus
>> > > > > > captures
>> > > > > > > > the why and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the how, so rather than copy and pasting,
>> you
>> > > can
>> > > > > > take
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > look at
>> > > > > > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > he's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > done. Thoughts?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tony
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rd38afa9fb6c0dcd77d1a677f1152b7398b3bda93c9106b3393149d10%40%3Cdev.yetus.apache.org%3E
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0825eec0c84296bdab7cf898a987f06355443241ca02b2aaa51d3ef9%40%3Cdev.accumulo.apache.org%3E
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] rename master branch, look through code for other
related issues
Posted by Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>.
Mike,
I did a quick check to see if anyone had done a jira or pr for #2, so I'll
take a stab at doing that today.
Tony
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:27 PM Mike Thomsen <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Didn't see any commits or PRs for any of these yet. Do we want to consider
> these blockers for 1.12 or hold off until a post 1.12 release?
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:48 PM Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not that I'm aware of. All this so far just looks really easy to deal
> > with.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:46 AM Mike Thomsen <mi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Out of curiosity... are there any cases you've found where we might
> have
> > a
> > > term misalignment with what another product calls them? Like we might
> > have
> > > primary/replica and the supported system uses master/slave?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:32 AM Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ...additional note after reviewing the presence of
> > 'whitelist/blacklist'
> > > I
> > > > remain of the view what we need to do here is easy. There is minimal
> > API
> > > > impact and it appears to be just the nifi.properties file for a
> > property.
> > > > Other code changes do not appear to be API related and seem fair game
> > > now.
> > > > We can easily support the old naming and create a different property
> > name
> > > > for the properties file case. We dont need to wait for any major
> > release
> > > > as far as I can tell
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 4:47 PM Mike Thomsen <mikerthomsen@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think just shooting for #1 right away makes sense, but #2 will
> need
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > done as part of a major release. I think we go all-in to be
> > consistent
> > > on
> > > > > allow/block vs white/black and similar changes that are needed. We
> > > should
> > > > > also avoid things like the proposal to use "allowlist/denylist"
> that
> > > > other
> > > > > teams are debating since that is just a pointless spawning of
> > > neologisms
> > > > > for the sake of creating them. The best approach is to use clear,
> > > concise
> > > > > language that is preferably as limited on jargon as possible, and I
> > > feel
> > > > > like those teams are missing the mark on that. If we do find
> language
> > > > that
> > > > > needs to be changed in descriptor name fields, I think it would
> also
> > > > > prevent any problems by making part of the messaging being that
> those
> > > > > changes are non-negotiable as they represent real potential
> breakage
> > to
> > > > > users. I think most folks would be fine with that, but it might
> need
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > spelled out for some that there is a balance that has to be
> > maintained
> > > > > until a proper transition can take place.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 6:23 PM Tony Kurc <tk...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This discussion has died down quite a bit. I got the impression
> > there
> > > > was
> > > > > > at least majority support, although not consensus, for Joe's two
> > > > > proposals
> > > > > > [1].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #1 ( s/master/main/ ) is probably the most straightforward -
> change
> > > > > > developer docs and make the necessary repository changes. Can be
> > done
> > > > > > seemingly independent of software releases. Is it time for jiras
> on
> > > > that?
> > > > > > My sense is that 'main' appears to be a common term that projects
> > > > appear
> > > > > to
> > > > > > be gravitating to, but that discussion still abounds. This
> comment
> > > [2]
> > > > on
> > > > > > the git project's mailing list hurt my head quite a bit, but
> > > definitely
> > > > > > reinforced that main makes a whole lot more sense than master, as
> > > Andy
> > > > > > pointed out [3].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #2 is a bit less straightforward, going to require a code change
> > and
> > > > > figure
> > > > > > out where that fits with the versioning scheme commitments [4].
> Do
> > we
> > > > > > support both allow/block (or deny?) along with white/black in a
> > minor
> > > > > > release, and then prune white/black on next major release?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r6c133a31f882d3c818e63fa44dbc451f61d423a22dbe72396483127b%40%3Cdev.nifi.apache.org%3E
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/CANgJU+Ut+ANPHud1JQw1Wo+zb37_=EWx-vgap6FGC+T=-dzn4A@mail.gmail.com/
> > > > > > 3.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r86a9a390f023a0298488084bdcb4caaa4bedfe406f1c86a1ca4bdac3%40%3Cdev.nifi.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > 4.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Version+Scheme+and+API+Compatibility
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:36 PM Otto Fowler <
> > ottobackwards@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > As long as it isn’t renamed to zeek or something, I think we
> > > should
> > > > > > change
> > > > > > > it and not look back.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On June 18, 2020 at 19:05:38, Mike Thomsen (
> > mikerthomsen@gmail.com
> > > )
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As teammates and friends, it was an easy change, even if code
> > was
> > > > > > > involved. And I assume much easier than having the courage to
> ask
> > > for
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ironically, around the same time I had a colleague who was like
> > the
> > > > > evil
> > > > > > > opposite of that. Friend is the last word any of us would use
> to
> > > > > describe
> > > > > > > him. He was a cautionary tale in why teams have to also
> maintain
> > > > > defense
> > > > > > > mechanisms against toxic people who exploit empathy as a power
> > > play;
> > > > > > it's a
> > > > > > > common tactic of abusers/toxic people to make demands on people
> > to
> > > > > change
> > > > > > > their behavior to see how compliant they are. That former
> > > colleague,
> > > > if
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > got them talking about their views, could wax eloquent about
> > > > tolerance,
> > > > > > > inclusiveness, etc. and then without a hint of irony turn
> around
> > > and
> > > > > > wage a
> > > > > > > one man war on everyone else.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:53 AM Joey Frazee <
> > > joey.frazee@icloud.com
> > > > > > > .invalid>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I’m repeating this from elsewhere but I was on a team 7 years
> > ago
> > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > teammate asked us to stop using master and slave terminology,
> > > even
> > > > > > master
> > > > > > > > alone, because it made them uncomfortable. I can’t estimate
> how
> > > > > common
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > feeling is but this isn’t a theoretical exercise. As
> teammates
> > > and
> > > > > > > friends,
> > > > > > > > it was an easy change, even if code was involved. And I
> assume
> > > much
> > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > than having the courage to ask for it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I’d say it’s also important to note that “but that’s not the
> > > > original
> > > > > > > > intended word sense” doesn’t alleviate that alienating
> > > experience.
> > > > > > While
> > > > > > > > potentially a matter of fact of the intent for some uses, “I
> > want
> > > > to
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > that word” is pretty unfriendly stacked against “that makes
> me
> > > feel
> > > > > > > > unwelcome”.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Two guidelines from the code of conduct seem particularly
> > > apropos:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Be empathetic, welcoming, friendly, and patient
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Be careful in the words that we choose
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > AFAICT there’s not an escape hatch for code, tools, or
> effort.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -joey
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 2020, 10:05 AM -0500, Edward Armes <
> > > > > edward.armes@gmail.com
> > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I agree with this, and maybe that is the potential the step
> > > > forward
> > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > is: issue a statement is issued saying something like this
> > is a
> > > > > > complex
> > > > > > > > > issue and instead of making changes that could cause
> further
> > > > > division
> > > > > > > > > within the community we are looking for those that are
> > > interested
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > form a constructive working group that will help influence
> > and
> > > > > > resolve
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > of these issues in a positive way for all not only for
> > project
> > > > but
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > within the wider group of apache projects.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Edward
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, 11:17 Uwe@Moosheimer.com, <
> > > > Uwe@moosheimer.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Language is always changing and the meaning of words is
> > > > changing,
> > > > > > > > > > sometimes positively and sometimes negatively.
> > > > > > > > > > I think that now is time for change again and we should
> > > discuss
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > of phrases and meanings.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Of course we should change "Master Branch" to "Main
> > Branch".
> > > > > > > > > > But I also think that we shouldn't just make quick
> changes
> > > > > because
> > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > opportune and hastily change a few words.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > An example: We could change Master/Slave to
> > Leader/Follower.
> > > > This
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > a perfect choice for most people in the world.
> > > > > > > > > > In German Leader is the English word for "Führer". And it
> > is
> > > > > > > precisely
> > > > > > > > > > this word that we in Germany do not actually want to use
> > for
> > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What I mean is that every country and every group (e.g.
> > > > religion
> > > > > > > etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > has its own history and certain words or phrases are just
> > > not a
> > > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > > > choice.
> > > > > > > > > > We should try to go the ethically correct way worldwide.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This concerns the adaptation of current words and phrases
> > > with
> > > > a
> > > > > > view
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > all: in English, Indian, Chinese, German etc. but also
> for
> > > > > > indigenous
> > > > > > > > > > peoples, different religions etc.
> > > > > > > > > > And cultural differences should also be taken into
> account.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What I would wish for:
> > > > > > > > > > Apache.org should set up an "Ethics Board". A group of
> > people
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > different genders, all colors, religions and from
> different
> > > > > > countries
> > > > > > > > > > and cultures all over our world.
> > > > > > > > > > This Ethics Board should find good and for no one
> > > > discriminating
> > > > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > or phrases for all the areas that stand out today as
> > > offensive.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And it would be nice if not only computer scientists
> > > > > participated,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > also ethicists, philosophers, engineers, various
> religious
> > > > > people,
> > > > > > > > > > chemists, biologists, physicists, sociologists, etc.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And this Council should set binding targets for all
> > projects.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Am 18.06.2020 um 09:36 schrieb Pierre Villard:
> > > > > > > > > > > > In my perspective this should be an issue for the
> > entire
> > > > > > > community.
> > > > > > > > > > Being
> > > > > > > > > > > > able to identify an issue that directly affects
> another
> > > > > person
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > one’s self is the definition of privilege. If I can
> > look
> > > at
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > > the use
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > these words in someone’s daily life or career impacts
> > > them
> > > > > > > > negatively,
> > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > the change would not harm me at all, I see that as a
> > > > failure
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > part. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > understand the desire to hear from the silent
> majority,
> > > but
> > > > > > > active
> > > > > > > > > > > > participation and discussion on the mailing list is
> the
> > > > exact
> > > > > > > > measure
> > > > > > > > > > > > described by the Apache process for participation in
> > the
> > > > > > > community.
> > > > > > > > > > Those
> > > > > > > > > > > > who speak here are the ones who will have a voice.
> > > > > > > > > > > I could not agree more with the above.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Le jeu. 18 juin 2020 à 04:29, Tony Kurc <
> > tkurc@apache.org>
> > > a
> > > > > > écrit
> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose I was a bit remiss in not unwinding and/or
> > > > > > summarizing
> > > > > > > > some of
> > > > > > > > > > > > what was in that yetus thread to prime the
> discussion,
> > > but
> > > > a
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andy is mentioning is expanded on a bit in this ietf
> > > > document
> > > > > > > [1],
> > > > > > > > > > which is
> > > > > > > > > > > > linked in one of the articles.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 10:02 PM Andy LoPresto <
> > > > > > > alopresto@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Edward, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’ll
> > reply
> > > > > > inline.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Some of the terms proposed are not industry
> > > standard
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > potentially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cause significant issue for non-english speakers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I actually believe making these changes will
> > _improve_
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > clarity for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > non-english speakers. “Whitelist” and “blacklist”
> > > confer
> > > > no
> > > > > > > > inherent
> > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to mean allow and deny other than connotative
> biases.
> > > > > “Allow”
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > “deny”
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explicitly indicate the verb that is happening.
> > Another
> > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > branch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > naming. “Masters” don’t have “branches”. “Trunks”
> do.
> > > > These
> > > > > > > > terms make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > _more_ sense for a non-English speaker than the
> > current
> > > > > > terms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - For each change that is made can we guarantee
> > that
> > > we
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > not lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity of meaning, and then have revert the
> change
> > > > down
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > line if
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > change causes a drop in usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don’t expect the community will opt to change the
> > new
> > > > > terms
> > > > > > > > back to
> > > > > > > > > > > > ones
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with negative connotations in the future. If there
> is
> > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this thread will provide good historical context
> for
> > > why
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > decision
> > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > made to change it, just as the mailing list
> > discussions
> > > > do
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Of what percentage of people is this truly an
> > issue
> > > > for
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > percentage isn't. Any change that has the
> potential
> > > to
> > > > > > cause
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > major
> > > > > > > > > > > > > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the community, there must be as close as
> > possible
> > > > to a
> > > > > > > > majority,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > just from those that are vocal and active on the
> > > > mailing
> > > > > > > lists.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Disscustions on other groups are turning toxic,
> and
> > > in
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > cases are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > potentially leading to the collapse of these
> > projects
> > > > > where
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are being implemented with what appears to be
> > without
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > agreement of
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > signifficant chunk of the community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In my perspective this should be an issue for the
> > > entire
> > > > > > > > community.
> > > > > > > > > > Being
> > > > > > > > > > > > > able to identify an issue that directly affects
> > another
> > > > > > person
> > > > > > > > but not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > one’s self is the definition of privilege. If I can
> > > look
> > > > at
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > the use
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these words in someone’s daily life or career
> impacts
> > > > them
> > > > > > > > negatively,
> > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the change would not harm me at all, I see that as
> a
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > part.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > understand the desire to hear from the silent
> > majority,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > > active
> > > > > > > > > > > > > participation and discussion on the mailing list is
> > the
> > > > > exact
> > > > > > > > measure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > described by the Apache process for participation
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > > community.
> > > > > > > > > > Those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > who speak here are the ones who will have a voice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - From a personal perspective, I sit on the
> autism
> > > > > spectrum
> > > > > > > > and have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > grown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > up with people using words that are very
> offensive
> > > and
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > hurt me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > badly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of having these words as offensive and
> > > > > untouchable.
> > > > > > > > Myself and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > others have instead made these words our own and
> > made
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > > lose the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > negative connotations they have. As such, I do
> find
> > > the
> > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > disscustions deeply alarming and feels like they
> > > start
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > border into
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > realm of censorship.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it’s admirable that you have responded to
> > > > negative
> > > > > > > > > > circumstances
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in that way. I also recognize that not everyone has
> > > that
> > > > > > > > opportunity.
> > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can take these actions as a community to improve
> the
> > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > others,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am in favor of that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - One final point (and potentially
> controversial),
> > A
> > > > good
> > > > > > > > chunk of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wording that is proposed to be changed. Is being
> > done
> > > > so
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "modern"/"street" definition of these words and
> not
> > > the
> > > > > > > actual
> > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Language should change and evolve to introduce
> > > clarity,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > right now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this change improve the clarity across the
> > > engineering
> > > > > > sector
> > > > > > > > and I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it won't.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I’ll paraphrase Emily Kager here with “developers
> > spend
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > inordinate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > amount of time and energy arguing about the meaning
> > and
> > > > > > > > semantics of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > variable and method names, but pretend exclusionary
> > > terms
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > meaningless.”
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] If we can expend that much energy deciding if a
> > > > method
> > > > > > > > creates vs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > builds vs. forms an imaginary concept like a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > LibraryFrameworkWrapperDecorator, I refuse to
> concede
> > > > that
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > can and
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fact should do so with the terms that actually
> affect
> > > our
> > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > members’ lives.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > https://twitter.com/EmilyKager/status/1271102865889734656
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://twitter.com/EmilyKager/status/1271102865889734656>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andy LoPresto
> > > > > > > > > > > > > alopresto@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > alopresto.apache@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > He/Him
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E
> > > F65B
> > > > > 2F7D
> > > > > > > > EF69
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 6:43 PM, Edward Armes <
> > > > > > > > edward.armes@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a difficult issue and causes no small
> > amount
> > > of
> > > > > > > > friction every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > time. I'm personally against this for the
> following
> > > > > > reassons:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Some of the terms proposed are not industry
> > > standard
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > potentially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cause significant issue for non-english speakers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - For each change that is made can we guarantee
> > that
> > > we
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > not lose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity of meaning, and then have revert the
> change
> > > > down
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > line if
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > change causes a drop in usage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Of what percentage of people is this truly an
> > issue
> > > > for
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > percentage isn't. Any change that has the
> potential
> > > to
> > > > > > cause
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > major
> > > > > > > > > > > > > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the community, there must be as close as
> > possible
> > > > to a
> > > > > > > > majority,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > just from those that are vocal and active on the
> > > > mailing
> > > > > > > lists.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Disscustions on other groups are turning toxic,
> and
> > > in
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > cases are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > potentially leading to the collapse of these
> > projects
> > > > > where
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are being implemented with what appears to be
> > without
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > agreement of
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > signifficant chunk of the community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - From a personal perspective, I sit on the
> autism
> > > > > spectrum
> > > > > > > > and have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > grown
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > up with people using words that are very
> offensive
> > > and
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > hurt me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > badly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of having these words as offensive and
> > > > > untouchable.
> > > > > > > > Myself and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > others have instead made these words our own and
> > made
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > > lose the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > negative connotations they have. As such, I do
> find
> > > the
> > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > disscustions deeply alarming and feels like they
> > > start
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > border into
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > realm of censorship.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - One final point (and potentially
> controversial),
> > A
> > > > good
> > > > > > > > chunk of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wording that is proposed to be changed. Is being
> > done
> > > > so
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "modern"/"street" definition of these words and
> not
> > > the
> > > > > > > actual
> > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Language should change and evolve to introduce
> > > clarity,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > right now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this change improve the clarity across the
> > > engineering
> > > > > > sector
> > > > > > > > and I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it won't.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edward
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, 01:11 Andy LoPresto, <
> > > > > > > > alopresto@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am a proponent of making this change and also
> > > using
> > > > > > > > allow/deny
> > > > > > > > > > list,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meddler-in-the-middle, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a blog [1] with easy instructions for
> > > > executing
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > change in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > git,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > although I don’t know if there is any
> > > > > Apache-integration
> > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we would also need.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.hanselman.com/blog/EasilyRenameYourGitDefaultBranchFromMasterToMain.aspx
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andy LoPresto
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alopresto@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alopresto.apache@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He/Him
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE
> > 3C6E
> > > > > F65B
> > > > > > > > 2F7D EF69
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <
> > > > > > > joe.witt@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect it would be fairly easy to make
> this
> > > > > change.
> > > > > > We
> > > > > > > > do, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > think,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have whitelist/blacklist in there somewhere
> but
> > > im
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > sure how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > involved.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:04 PM Tony Kurc <
> > > > > > > > tkurc@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've seen the discussion started on other
> > > > projects
> > > > > > > > [1][2], so I
> > > > > > > > > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kick off a discussion to determine whether
> > this
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > something nifi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look at too. Allen Wittenauer's post to
> yetus
> > > > > > captures
> > > > > > > > the why and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the how, so rather than copy and pasting,
> you
> > > can
> > > > > > take
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > look at
> > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > he's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > done. Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tony
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rd38afa9fb6c0dcd77d1a677f1152b7398b3bda93c9106b3393149d10%40%3Cdev.yetus.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0825eec0c84296bdab7cf898a987f06355443241ca02b2aaa51d3ef9%40%3Cdev.accumulo.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>