Re: 答复: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Adam Bordelon]

Wow, what a response! Allow me to attempt to summarize the sentiment so far.

Let's start with the implicit question,
*0. Should we rename Mesos Slave?*
+1 (Explicit approval) 12, including 7 from JIRA
+0.5 (Implicit approval, suggested alternate name) 18
-0.5 (Some disapproval, wouldn't block it) 5, including 1 from JIRA
-1 (Strong disapproval) 16

*1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?*
Worker: +10, -2
Agent: +6
Follower (+Leader): +4, -1
Minion: +2, -1
Drone (+Director/Queen): +2
Resource-Agent/Provider: +2

*2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?*
Pretty much everybody says that it should be the same as the node.

*3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?*
Most say No, except when slave's new name has a preferred pairing (e.g.
Follower/Leader)

*4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?*
To calm any fears, we would have to go through a full deprecation cycle,
introducing the new name in one release, while maintaining
symlinks/aliases/duplicate-endpoints for the old name. In a subsequent
release, we can remove the old name/endpoints. As we introduce the new
Mesos 1.0 HTTP API, we will already be introducing breaking API changes, so
this would be an ideal time to do a rename.

Whether or not we decide to officially change the name in the code/APIs,
some organizations are already using alternative terminologies in their
presentations/scripts. We could at least try to agree upon a recommended
alternative name for these purposes.

*5. How do we vote on this?*
First, FYI: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
It seems there are two potentially separate items to vote on:

Prop-A: Rename Mesos-Slave in the code/APIs
Qualifies as a "code modification", so a negative (binding) vote
constitutes a veto. Note that there are no -1s from the Mesos PMC yet.
After this week of discussion where the community is invited to share their
thoughts/opinions, we will call for an official VOTE from the PMC members.
The proposal will pass if there are at least three positive votes and no
negative ones.

Prop-B: Recommended Alternative Name for "Slave"
This can follow the common format of majority rule. We can gather
recommendations during this one week discussion period, and then vote on
the top 2-3 finalists.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Emilien Kenler  wrote:

> +1 for keeping master/slave.
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal)  > wrote:
>
>>  +1  master/slave.
>>
>>
>>
>> These are only terminologies in software architecture.  They have
>> different definitions from those of social or political view.
>>
>>
>>
>> *发件人:* zhou weitao [mailto:zhouwtl...@gmail.com]
>> *发送时间:* 2015年6月5日 10:40
>> *收件人:* u...@mesos.apache.org
>> *主题:* Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave
>>
>>
>>
>> +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan :
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> +1 master/slave
>>
>> James made some very good points and there is no technical reason for
>> wasting time on this.
>>
>> On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote:
>> > +1 master/slave, no change needed.
>> >
>> > I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave is a
>> > well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined). This
>> > is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least as far
>> > as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing software/systems
>> > nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a waste of
>> > time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who have
>> > adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early stages
>> > of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave
>> > whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were the
>> > case ;)
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Jim
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven > > <mailto:erenguv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 master/slave, no change needed
>> >
>> > Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. Also
>> > agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause upgrade
>> > pains.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao > > <mailto:xia...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 to James DeFelice.  I don't feel the name is confuse for any
>> > circumstance.
>> >
>> > 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[James DeFelice]

-1 master/worker
-1 master/agent
-1 leader/follower

+1 master/slave; no change needed

There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology change at this
point. If people want to change the names in their client presentations
that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific meaning that is lost otherwise.
In this context of this project (and elsewhere in Engineering-related
fields) the terms are technical jargon and have no social implications
within such context.


On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff  wrote:

> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
> 2. Mesos Worker [process]
> 3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and
> change old references over time.  Fixing the "official" name, even before
> changes are in place, would be a good first step.
>
>
> +1
>



-- 
James DeFelice
585.241.9488 (voice)
650.649.6071 (fax)

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Till Toenshoff]

> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
> 2. Mesos Worker [process]
> 3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and 
> change old references over time.  Fixing the "official" name, even before 
> changes are in place, would be a good first step.

+1

RE: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Aaron Carey]

+1 to Itamar.

I'd be interested to hear any case studies of how this has been handled in 
other OS projects with master/slave namings if anyone can give examples?


From: Itamar Ostricher [ita...@yowza3d.com]
Sent: 04 June 2015 05:38
To: u...@mesos.apache.org
Cc: dev
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave


Strong -1 for changing the name (either master or slave).

>From a community stand point, if dev resources are diverted to renaming 
>efforts, then the community and the user base both lose meaningful 
>functionality that isn't being worked on.

>From a using organization stand point, as well as framework developer 
>perspective, I follow mesos releases pretty closely, and I'm confident that 
>the version that deprecates backward compatibility with the current names will 
>be a version I will not be able to adopt for months, if at all...

So please don't do that, or if you do, consider leaving in a configuration 
option to keep the current names for sane upgrades.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015, 06:42 Benjamin Staffin 
mailto:b...@folsomlabs.com>> wrote:
1. Mesos Worker (or just Mesos node)
2. Mesos Worker
3. No, but if we do then Leader or Director or Controller
4. Deprecation cycle, documentation, etc. Provide aliases for a release or two.

Thanks for raising this topic; it's been on my mind for a while.

As for why I think this matters: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon 
mailto:a...@mesosphere.io>> wrote:
There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than 
"Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478

I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if we 
cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the discussion 
and call for a VOTE.
Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?

Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't 
necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new name(s).
4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?

Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.

Thanks!
-Adam-

P.S. My personal thoughts:
1. Mesos Worker [Node]
2. Mesos Worker or Agent
3. No
4. Carefully

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Benjamin Staffin]

1. Mesos Worker (or just Mesos node)
2. Mesos Worker
3. No, but if we do then Leader or Director or Controller
4. Deprecation cycle, documentation, etc. Provide aliases for a release or
two.

Thanks for raising this topic; it's been on my mind for a while.

As for why I think this matters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon  wrote:

> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Itamar Ostricher]

Strong -1 for changing the name (either master or slave).

>From a community stand point, if dev resources are diverted to renaming
efforts, then the community and the user base both lose meaningful
functionality that isn't being worked on.

>From a using organization stand point, as well as framework developer
perspective, I follow mesos releases pretty closely, and I'm confident that
the version that deprecates backward compatibility with the current names
will be a version I will not be able to adopt for months, if at all...

So please don't do that, or if you do, consider leaving in a configuration
option to keep the current names for sane upgrades.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015, 06:42 Benjamin Staffin  wrote:

> 1. Mesos Worker (or just Mesos node)
> 2. Mesos Worker
> 3. No, but if we do then Leader or Director or Controller
> 4. Deprecation cycle, documentation, etc. Provide aliases for a release or
> two.
>
> Thanks for raising this topic; it's been on my mind for a while.
>
> As for why I think this matters:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon  wrote:
>
>> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
>> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>>
>> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
>> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
>> discussion and call for a VOTE.
>> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
>> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
>> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
>> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>>
>> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
>> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
>> name(s).
>> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>>
>> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Adam-
>>
>> P.S. My personal thoughts:
>> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
>> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
>> 3. No
>> 4. Carefully
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Steven Borrelli]

+1

I’d like to voice my support for removing the master/slave nomenclature. It’s 
our policy at aster.is  that we don’t use that terminology in 
our projects or presentations. 

Currently we use ‘leader/follower’, but we are open to using whatever terms the 
community comes up with. We’re also willing to contribute resources to help get 
this accomplished.

We also like queen/drone. 

1. Mesos follower. I’m fine with worker or compute. Not a fan of minion.
2. mesos-
3. We use the term ‘leader’ right now.
4. - Update internal code references & UI (have duplicate API endpoints)
- update packages & launch scripts, systemd service files, docker 
containers. Luckily, the mesos binary doesn’t need to be changed, just the 
start scripts and locations in /etc. For N versions we can update launch 
scripts to look for things like /etc/mesos-master config, environment files, 
and docker containers for backwards compatibility. 
- make changes final by Mesoscon in August, add deprecation warnings 
- N + x version of Mesos, remove old UI endpoints and usage of master/slave 
config files

Cheers,

Steven Borrelli

> On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:18 PM, Adam Bordelon  wrote:
> 
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than 
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478 
> 
> 
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if we 
> cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the 
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
> 
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't 
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new 
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
> 
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
> 
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
> 
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Steven Borrelli]

+1

I’d like to voice my support for removing the master/slave nomenclature. It’s 
our policy at aster.is that we don’t use that terminology in our projects or 
presentations. 

Currently we use ‘leader/follower’, but we are open to using whatever terms the 
community comes up with. We’re also willing to contribute resources to help get 
this accomplished.

We also like queen/drone. 

1. Mesos follower. I’m fine with worker or compute. Not a fan of minion.
2. mesos-
3. We use the term ‘leader’ right now.
4. - Update internal code references & UI (have duplicate API endpoints)
- update packages & launch scripts, systemd service files, docker 
containers. Luckily, the mesos binary doesn’t need to be changed, just the 
start scripts and locations in /etc. For N versions we can update launch 
scripts to look for things like /etc/mesos-master config, environment files, 
and docker containers for backwards compatibility. 
- make changes final by Mesoscon in August, add deprecation warnings 
- N + x version of Mesos, remove old UI endpoints and usage of master/slave 
config files

Cheers,

Steven Borrelli



> On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:18 PM, Adam Bordelon  wrote:
> 
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than 
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478 
> 
> 
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if we 
> cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the 
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
> 
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't 
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new 
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
> 
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
> 
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
> 
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Diego Medina]

+1 for Brian Hicks' leader/follower name and a huge +1 for the explanation
he gave

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Brian Hicks  wrote:

> 1. We’ve been aliasing everything to “leader/follower” in the projects I’m
> a part of. I think it gets rid of the problematic language while still
> being descriptive of the architectural model. “agent” makes sense to me,
> too (since those processes do have agency in some situations) but I would
> call it a second choice, personally.
> 2. mesos-{whatever-we-decide}
> 3. I don’t think “master” is as problematic as “slave”, but it does have
> some of the same connotations. If we’re going to take the time to rename,
> we should rename both. But if it turns out to be infeasible from a project
> management standpoint, “master” will probably be fine.
> 4. same as others have said: start off with documentation changes, follow
> through with code changes. Deprecate the old binary names over several
> versions, to avoid a cliff.
>
> For what it’s worth, I think it’s good that the Mesos project understands
> that the words we use have different meanings to different people. While I
> am not “offended” by the current terminology I understand that master/slave
> has a strong connotation towards ongoing civil and human rights abuses, and
> I would seek to distance the project from that. Continuing to make these
> words part of our everyday lexicon normalizes oppressive structures, and
> sends a strong signal to people outside the “blessed” group. Mesos is an
> industry-leading technology, and we have a responsibility to build an
> inclusive and friendly community. This is not only for the good of the
> product, but for the good of the industry and all the people whose lives
> are effected by it.
>
> So, strong +1.
>
> Brian Hicks
>
>
> On Monday, June 1, 2015, Adam Bordelon  wrote:
>
>  There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
>> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>>
>> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
>> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
>> discussion and call for a VOTE.
>> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
>> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
>> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
>> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>>
>> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
>> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
>> name(s).
>> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>>
>> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Adam-
>>
>> P.S. My personal thoughts:
>> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
>> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
>> 3. No
>> 4. Carefully
>>
>


-- 
Diego Medina
Lift/Scala consultant
di...@fmpwizard.com
http://fmpwizard.telegr.am

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Jie Yu]

Dave,

I am not saying that we should make the decision solely based on
organization votes. This is just an extra input we can use while making the
decision.

By looking at the threads, looks like we don't have a community consensus
here. Then the question is: how do we make a *better* decision without a
community consensus.

I would like get inputs from organization's perspective because I believe
the order of complexities of changing the internal config/monitoring stack
within organizations are the same regardless of their sizes. So gathering
inputs from that perspective should be helpful for us to make a better
decision.

- Jie

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Dave Lester  wrote:

> Hi Jie,
>
> I understand your concern here, but within Apache projects,
> "organizations" do not have a voice/vote -- people do.
>
> I think should take into strong consideration the overhead any change
> may have on any adopter/organization and discuss those risks and
> problems openly, but ideally this decision would be made based upon
> consensus within the community. If consensus cannot be reached, a vote
> among committers may be necessary.
>
> Dave
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015, at 08:52 AM, Jie Yu wrote:
> > Adam,
> >
> > If a vote is called out, how do we decide if it passes or not. Will that
> > be
> > the same of voting for a release (i.e., PMC member can veto it)?
> >
> > I would imagine that some PMC members might want to express some negative
> > feedbacks on this, but certainly do not want to veto it. How do we deal
> > with this situation?
> >
> > As already pointed out in the thread, this name change requires large
> > amount of work on changing the internal config files, monitoring stack
> > and
> > a complicated rolling out procedure.
> >
> > Because of that, I would like to propose that we also *count votes by
> > organization* and take that into account. We probably don't want to pass
> > a
> > vote if a majority of the organizations do not want it, right? We'll
> > decide
> > each organization's +1/-1 by looking at votes from their employees (e.g.,
> > by majority).
> >
> > If one does not have an organization associated with, his/her vote will
> > be
> > put into a separate pool. If an organization wants to stay anonymous,
> > just
> > use a label (but make sure to use the same label if there are multiple
> > votes from the same organization).
> >
> > How does that sound?
> >
> > - Jie
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon 
> wrote:
> >
> > > There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> > > "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
> > >
> > > I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and
> if
> > > we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> > > discussion and call for a VOTE.
> > > Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> > > 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> > > 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> > > 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
> > >
> > > Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> > > necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> > > name(s).
> > > 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
> > >
> > > Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > -Adam-
> > >
> > > P.S. My personal thoughts:
> > > 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> > > 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> > > 3. No
> > > 4. Carefully
> > >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Dave Lester]

Hi Jie,

I understand your concern here, but within Apache projects,
"organizations" do not have a voice/vote -- people do.

I think should take into strong consideration the overhead any change
may have on any adopter/organization and discuss those risks and
problems openly, but ideally this decision would be made based upon
consensus within the community. If consensus cannot be reached, a vote
among committers may be necessary.

Dave

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015, at 08:52 AM, Jie Yu wrote:
> Adam,
> 
> If a vote is called out, how do we decide if it passes or not. Will that
> be
> the same of voting for a release (i.e., PMC member can veto it)?
> 
> I would imagine that some PMC members might want to express some negative
> feedbacks on this, but certainly do not want to veto it. How do we deal
> with this situation?
> 
> As already pointed out in the thread, this name change requires large
> amount of work on changing the internal config files, monitoring stack
> and
> a complicated rolling out procedure.
> 
> Because of that, I would like to propose that we also *count votes by
> organization* and take that into account. We probably don't want to pass
> a
> vote if a majority of the organizations do not want it, right? We'll
> decide
> each organization's +1/-1 by looking at votes from their employees (e.g.,
> by majority).
> 
> If one does not have an organization associated with, his/her vote will
> be
> put into a separate pool. If an organization wants to stay anonymous,
> just
> use a label (but make sure to use the same label if there are multiple
> votes from the same organization).
> 
> How does that sound?
> 
> - Jie
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon  wrote:
> 
> > There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> > "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
> >
> > I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> > we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> > discussion and call for a VOTE.
> > Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> > 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> > 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> > 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
> >
> > Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> > necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> > name(s).
> > 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
> >
> > Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -Adam-
> >
> > P.S. My personal thoughts:
> > 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> > 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> > 3. No
> > 4. Carefully
> >

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Jie Yu]

Adam,

If a vote is called out, how do we decide if it passes or not. Will that be
the same of voting for a release (i.e., PMC member can veto it)?

I would imagine that some PMC members might want to express some negative
feedbacks on this, but certainly do not want to veto it. How do we deal
with this situation?

As already pointed out in the thread, this name change requires large
amount of work on changing the internal config files, monitoring stack and
a complicated rolling out procedure.

Because of that, I would like to propose that we also *count votes by
organization* and take that into account. We probably don't want to pass a
vote if a majority of the organizations do not want it, right? We'll decide
each organization's +1/-1 by looking at votes from their employees (e.g.,
by majority).

If one does not have an organization associated with, his/her vote will be
put into a separate pool. If an organization wants to stay anonymous, just
use a label (but make sure to use the same label if there are multiple
votes from the same organization).

How does that sound?

- Jie



On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Adam Bordelon  wrote:

> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Elizabeth Lingg]

1. Mesos worker
2. Mesos worker
3. No
4. Documentation should first be changed

Thanks,
Elizabeth

On Monday, June 1, 2015, Adam Bordelon  wrote:

> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Vetoshkin Nikita]

1) Mesos Agent maybe? Agent (in law e.g.) is someone acting on behalf of
other person. That is right what we have, mesos-slave isn't a worker and
shouldn't be - it should let others work.
2) mesos-agent
Although I personally like Google terminology - Borg master and borglet,
Omega master and omlet. Any thoughts?
3) Master is OK.
4) Start fixing documentation and change code/binaries in some major
release with other backward incompatible changes.

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015, 18:45 Chris Aniszczyk  wrote:

> 1) Mesos Worker
> 2) Mesos Worker
> 3) no, I'm OK with Mesos Master
> 4) announce the change as part of a new release and deprecate the old names
> publicly; this may also be a good time to consider crafting an official
> deprecation policy for the project so we're transparent with how
> deprecation will work in the future
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Connor Doyle  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
> > 2. Mesos Worker [process]
> > 3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
> > 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and
> > change old references over time.  Fixing the "official" name, even before
> > changes are in place, would be a good first step.
> >
> > --
> > Connor
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 1, 2015, at 14:18, Adam Bordelon  wrote:
> > >
> > > There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> > "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
> > >
> > > I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and
> > if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> > discussion and call for a VOTE.
> > > Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> > > 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> > > 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> > > 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
> > >
> > > Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> > necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> > name(s).
> > > 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
> > >
> > > Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > -Adam-
> > >
> > > P.S. My personal thoughts:
> > > 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> > > 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> > > 3. No
> > > 4. Carefully
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Chris Aniszczyk
> http://aniszczyk.org
> +1 512 961 6719
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Chris Aniszczyk]

1) Mesos Worker
2) Mesos Worker
3) no, I'm OK with Mesos Master
4) announce the change as part of a new release and deprecate the old names
publicly; this may also be a good time to consider crafting an official
deprecation policy for the project so we're transparent with how
deprecation will work in the future

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Connor Doyle  wrote:

> +1
>
> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
> 2. Mesos Worker [process]
> 3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and
> change old references over time.  Fixing the "official" name, even before
> changes are in place, would be a good first step.
>
> --
> Connor
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 2015, at 14:18, Adam Bordelon  wrote:
> >
> > There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
> >
> > I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and
> if we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> > Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> > 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> > 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> > 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
> >
> > Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> > 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
> >
> > Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -Adam-
> >
> > P.S. My personal thoughts:
> > 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> > 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> > 3. No
> > 4. Carefully
>
>


-- 
Cheers,

Chris Aniszczyk
http://aniszczyk.org
+1 512 961 6719

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Connor Doyle]

+1

1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine]
2. Mesos Worker [process]
3. No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less changes.
4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the docs, and change 
old references over time.  Fixing the "official" name, even before changes are 
in place, would be a good first step.

--
Connor


> On Jun 1, 2015, at 14:18, Adam Bordelon  wrote:
> 
> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than 
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
> 
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if we 
> cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the 
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
> 
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't 
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new 
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
> 
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
> 
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
> 
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully

Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Jeff Schroeder]

My (very personal) thought here is that we should ensure a vocal minority
is not changing things for the sake of changing it. What is the industry
standard here? Are potential users actually refusing to use mesos due to
the terminology which is unfortunately very prevalent in the client/server
world? If so, how many? Does this serve the mesos and greater Apache
community goals?

Note: I'm absolutely not trying to start a flame war, but these are
questions we as a community should answer. That specific PR causes a lot of
bike shedding in the Django community which (if we are lucky) might be
prevented.

On Monday, June 1, 2015, Adam Bordelon  wrote:

> There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
> "Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478
>
> I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
> we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
> discussion and call for a VOTE.
> Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
> 1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
> 2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
> 3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?
>
> Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
> necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
> name(s).
> 4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?
>
> Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.
>
> Thanks!
> -Adam-
>
> P.S. My personal thoughts:
> 1. Mesos Worker [Node]
> 2. Mesos Worker or Agent
> 3. No
> 4. Carefully
>


-- 
Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone

[DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave

[Adam Bordelon]

There has been much discussion about finding a less offensive name than
"Slave", and many of these thoughts have been captured in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1478

I would like to open up the discussion on this topic for one week, and if
we cannot arrive at a lazy consensus, I will draft a proposal from the
discussion and call for a VOTE.
Here are the questions I would like us to answer:
1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?
2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?
3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?

Another topic worth discussing is the deprecation process, but we don't
necessarily need to decide on that at the same time as deciding the new
name(s).
4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?

Please voice your thoughts and opinions below.

Thanks!
-Adam-

P.S. My personal thoughts:
1. Mesos Worker [Node]
2. Mesos Worker or Agent
3. No
4. Carefully