I’ll second Billie’s proposal as it’s a good idea and something we should pursue. Being as inclusive, open, and inviting as possible is a good thing! Jeremy, thanks for a good strawman for a reasonable way to proceed with our next steps.
-Chris Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 18, 2020, at 2:59 PM, Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Perhaps the following approach might make sense: > > (1) Identify the changes that would need to be made. > > (2) Understand the impact of those changes. > > (3) Determine the right time in the roadmap to make the changes. Do we have > plans to revisit some of these components for other reasons so making a > change would be a relatively simple process? > > (4) Decide to proceed. Other open source projects are undertaking similar > efforts and will have valuable lessons learned for us in the near future. It > would seem prudent to learn from their experiences. > > There seems to be no harm in pursuing (1)-(3) and then providing a detailed > proposal on choosing how to proceed that is informed by the experiences of > other open source projects. > > The supercomputing community identified the same issue in the late 1990s, and > by avoiding the practice in new efforts it removed the issue by the > mid-2000s. That may not be relevant here, but is one data point. > > > >> On Jun 18, 2020, at 8:39 AM, Ed Coleman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> For processes, would Root be too confusing? We would then have rservers and >> tservers which may be more descriptive of functionality. >> >> This discussion is also going on the NiFi lists (and I assume elsewhere) >> One thing that popped out is that we may want to avoid leader / follower. >> (Leader is problematic in German) This bring up the issue that we may want >> avoid rushing on a decision and also consider other apache community >> consensus so that we don't unintentionally trade one problem for another. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Lerman <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:49 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master >> >> I also support changing the name. I'd also like to throw in "Primary" as a >> possible choice. >> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:47 PM Kepner, Jeremy - LLSC - MITLL < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Will it break user code? >>> >>>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Brian Loss <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I agree—things have changed in the world since this was last >>>> discussed, >>> and I think it’s time to make the change even though it will be disruptive. >>> I support changing both the master branch and Accumulo master service >>> names as well, and am willing to help out with the work to get it done. >>>> >>>> Mike, do we need to have some consensus on the names before the vote? >>> That is, can the vote select a name from a list, or must it purely be >>> a +/- vote for a specific choice? It might be better to have more >>> discussion in this discuss thread (or in a ticket) before a vote is held. >>>> >>>>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Michael Wall <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I support changing both the name of the Accumulo master service and >>>>> the master branch name. Should we start a vote? Maybe we need to >>> understand >>>>> the full scope of what will be required before we can do that. >>>>> Billie, >>> do >>>>> you want to start the ticket you mentioned? >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Owens, Mark <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sounds like GitHub is considering changing 'master' to 'main'. >>>>>> That >>> could >>>>>> also be a possibility. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Billie Rinaldi <[email protected]> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:07 PM >>>>>> To: Accumulo Dev List <[email protected]> >>>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Rename Accumulo master >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Accumulo folks! I would like to start a discussion about >>>>>> renaming >>> the >>>>>> Accumulo master. Previous discussions were held a few years ago [1]. >>> Some >>>>>> things have changed since we started that discussion, in the world >>>>>> and >>> in >>>>>> our project governance, so I think it is worth revisiting this topic. >>>>>> >>>>>> If people agree that a rename would be worthwhile, we can start >>>>>> identifying the many changes that would need to be made (probably >>>>>> a >>> GitHub >>>>>> issue would be a good place for that). This will be a big change >>>>>> and I >>> am >>>>>> happy to help work on it. If anyone else is interested in helping >>>>>> out >>> too, >>>>>> I think we should be able to break the work down into several >>>>>> discrete tasks. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe the best replacement names we came up with on the >>>>>> original ticket were Coordinator and Conductor. I also wanted to >>>>>> suggest another possibility that I don't think we considered: Admin / >>>>>> AdminServer. >>> Admin is >>>>>> generic, but at least it's short. Feel free to share your thoughts >>>>>> and other ideas, if you have them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Billie >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2844 >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
