[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14009169#comment-14009169
]
Noah Slater commented on COUCHDB-2248:
--------------------------------------
Technically justified, sure. Not sure documented nomenclature is within the
purview of that though. The original intention of the veto being to give the
PMC the power it needs to keep the shippable code up to ASF standards of
functionality, security, and legal compliance, etc. I'd rather punt on the
decision making meta discussion for now though!
As for the ickyness of the terms, there are plenty of comments on the Django
thread from people in the technology community who feel that the connotations
with slavery (there are 27 million slaves in the world today) or BDSM is
unwanted. As Joan points out, however, we only use slave once, and it is in
passing. It occurs more times than that in the book, however.
What I'm interested in discussing now is the merits of the term master, which
by itself, doesn't seem to be as problematic as the master/slave combo. But as
Joan (perhaps inadvertently) pointed out, implies a model that doesn't actually
fit. There are no masters. Just peers that you set up to replicate from.
So would it make sense to revise our language here, to talk about peers, to
properly communicate one of the key concepts of CouchDB. The concept that
warrants that hilarious slide in Jan's talks about CouchDB, where the whole
slide is full of couches, and they're all replicating with each other.
Earlier in this thread, you indicated that you would be +1 on this change,
where appropriate. So maybe the question is: where is it appropriate and where
isn't it appropriate? Is it really so bad to replace "master-master" with
"peer-to-peer"?
> Replace "master" and "slave" terminology
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-2248
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2248
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: public(Regular issues)
> Components: Documentation
> Reporter: Noah Slater
> Priority: Trivial
>
> Inspired by the comments on this PR:
> https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692
> Summary is: `master` and `slave` are racially charged terms, and it would be
> good to avoid them. Django have gone for `primary` and `replica`. But we also
> have to deal with what we now call multi-master setups. I propose "peer to
> peer" as a replacement, or just "peer" if you're describing one node.
> As far as I can tell, the primary work here is the docs. The wiki and any
> supporting material can be updated after.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
