Given I'm still hoping to drive the PRs for AMQ-8317, and AMQ-7514 through I apologize for not chiming in earlier due to busyness.
But echoing the consensus as well for posterity: > Nouns: Primary/Backup > Adjectives: Active/Passive Such that for AMQ5 we'd be starting generally to use the replacement for M/S as Active Passive. -- Étienne he/him/his On Sat, 7 May 2022, at 10:13 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > The purpose is not really a formal vote (as for a release for instance). > It's more to get consensus. > > I think we have a consensus. > > +1 to proceed now :) > > Regards > JB > > Le dim. 8 mai 2022 à 05:14, Tetreault, Lucas <tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid> > a écrit : > >> Here is the summary of all the votes: >> [+1,1,-1,-1000,-1,-1] Leader/Follower >> [-1,+1,+1,+1,+1,+1,-1,+1,+1] Primary/Backup >> [+1, +1, +1,+1] Active/Passive >> [+1] Active/Standby >> [+1] capitalist/worker >> >> It seems like we have consensus on Primary/Backup and Active/Passive as >> per Justin's suggestion: >> Nouns: Primary/Backup >> Adjectives: Active/Passive >> >> Does this need a formal vote since I didn't get the format right or is >> this enough consensus that we can move forward with these terms? >> >> Thanks, >> Lucas >> >> On 2022-05-06, 9:20 PM, "Michael André Pearce" < >> michael.andre.pea...@me.com.INVALID> wrote: >> >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do >> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and >> know the content is safe. >> >> >> >> My understanding was previous discuss thread was that we leant for for >> Primary/Backup >> >> What I was suggesting as it seemed it wasn’t closed out and it >> continues to rumble on was a binary vote per Apache voting on that as the >> proposal to end and close it out formally. >> >> As this is multiple choice this is not a vote thread, for it to be a >> vote it needs to be a proposal with a vote of +1/0/-1 on the proposal, not >> multi choice. Afaik. >> >> For the record I stand with the consensus from the previous discussion >> as no new arguments are made here. >> >> As such I would in poll >> >> >> [+1] primary/backup >> [-1] Leader/Follower >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> > On 6 May 2022, at 07:26, Tetreault, Lucas >> <tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote: >> > >> > Hey folks, >> > >> > I don’t know if I’m actually allowed to call for a vote given I’m >> not a committer/PMC member but Michael André Pearce made it clear on Slack >> that this was the only way to move this discussion forward and come to a >> final conclusion on the issue so here goes nothing. If I’m not supposed to >> call for a vote, perhaps someone could “sponsor” this request :) >> > >> > >> > A tweet [1] from a few days ago raised the issue of non-inclusive >> terminology in the AWS docs related to ActiveMQ [2] and suggested that we >> should replace “masterslave” with a more inclusive name for the network >> connector transport. Replacing master/slave nomenclature in ActiveMQ was >> raised as a Jira issue in July 2020 [3] and again on the mailing list in >> November 2020 [7]. There was some initial work to rename the git branch >> from master to main, some attempts at making some changes to the code ( >> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/679, >> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/714, >> https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/788) and Matt Pavlovich drafted a >> thorough proposal on the mailing list [6], however we have not been able to >> come to an agreement on nomenclature so these efforts seem to have stalled >> out. >> > >> > >> > >> > If we are able to come to an agreement on nomenclature, we can move >> forward with removing more non-inclusive terminology on the website (I will >> follow up with some PRs to the website), in discussions with the community >> and of course in the codebase. This will remove barriers to adoption and >> make ActiveMQ a more approachable and inclusive project for everyone! Other >> Apache projects such as Solr and Kafka have moved from master/slave to >> leader/follower. Leader/follower is also recommended by the IETF [4] and >> inclusivenaming.org [5] which is supported by companies such as Cisco, >> Intel, and RedHat. At AWS, we have used active/standby to describe HA >> deployments, however from previous discussions it's clear that >> active/standby is not a viable option for this community since 'active' can >> be used to describe so many things. If we can agree on leader/follower or >> some alternate we would follow the community's preference and adopt >> leader/follower to better serve our ActiveMQ users. >> > >> > >> > >> > From all the previous discussions, I believe we have two options to >> replace master/slave. Artemis will need to layer on a status (e.g.: >> active/standby) but I think we can move forward on this vote without >> deciding what those terms should be assuming people agree these options >> will support having a status layered on top. >> > >> > >> > >> > Please submit your +1/-1 vote on the following terms and please >> provide specific comments/alternatives if you’re -1 for both options. >> > >> > [ ] Leader/Follower >> > >> > [ ] Primary/Backup >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > [1] https://twitter.com/owenblacker/status/1517156221207212032 >> > >> > [2] >> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazon-mq/latest/developer-guide/amazon-mq-creating-configuring-network-of-brokers.html#creating-configuring-network-of-brokers-configure-network-connectors >> > >> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-7514 >> > >> > [4] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html >> > >> > [5] https://inclusivenaming.org/word-lists/tier-1/ >> > [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rcwogpchjo9p461hqoj6m89q9t2qpqjj >> > [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ntnrbz1l92xbvno0s2jxhhf7nbs8d9c >> > >> > Lucas Tétreault >> > Software Development Manager, Amazon MQ >> > email: tetlu...@amazon.com<mailto:tetlu...@amazon.com> >> > >> > >> >>
