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 <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 > -- Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
