...additional note after reviewing the presence of 'whitelist/blacklist' I remain of the view what we need to do here is easy. There is minimal API impact and it appears to be just the nifi.properties file for a property. Other code changes do not appear to be API related and seem fair game now. We can easily support the old naming and create a different property name for the properties file case. We dont need to wait for any major release as far as I can tell
Thanks On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 4:47 PM Mike Thomsen <[email protected]> wrote: > I think just shooting for #1 right away makes sense, but #2 will need to be > done as part of a major release. I think we go all-in to be consistent on > allow/block vs white/black and similar changes that are needed. We should > also avoid things like the proposal to use "allowlist/denylist" that other > teams are debating since that is just a pointless spawning of neologisms > for the sake of creating them. The best approach is to use clear, concise > language that is preferably as limited on jargon as possible, and I feel > like those teams are missing the mark on that. If we do find language that > needs to be changed in descriptor name fields, I think it would also > prevent any problems by making part of the messaging being that those > changes are non-negotiable as they represent real potential breakage to > users. I think most folks would be fine with that, but it might need to be > spelled out for some that there is a balance that has to be maintained > until a proper transition can take place. > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 6:23 PM Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This discussion has died down quite a bit. I got the impression there was > > at least majority support, although not consensus, for Joe's two > proposals > > [1]. > > > > #1 ( s/master/main/ ) is probably the most straightforward - change > > developer docs and make the necessary repository changes. Can be done > > seemingly independent of software releases. Is it time for jiras on that? > > My sense is that 'main' appears to be a common term that projects appear > to > > be gravitating to, but that discussion still abounds. This comment [2] on > > the git project's mailing list hurt my head quite a bit, but definitely > > reinforced that main makes a whole lot more sense than master, as Andy > > pointed out [3]. > > > > #2 is a bit less straightforward, going to require a code change and > figure > > out where that fits with the versioning scheme commitments [4]. Do we > > support both allow/block (or deny?) along with white/black in a minor > > release, and then prune white/black on next major release? > > > > 1. > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r6c133a31f882d3c818e63fa44dbc451f61d423a22dbe72396483127b%40%3Cdev.nifi.apache.org%3E > > > > 2. > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/CANgJU+Ut+ANPHud1JQw1Wo+zb37_=EWx-vgap6FGC+T=-dz...@mail.gmail.com/ > > 3. > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r86a9a390f023a0298488084bdcb4caaa4bedfe406f1c86a1ca4bdac3%40%3Cdev.nifi.apache.org%3E > > 4. > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Version+Scheme+and+API+Compatibility > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:36 PM Otto Fowler <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > As long as it isn’t renamed to zeek or something, I think we should > > change > > > it and not look back. > > > > > > > > > > > > On June 18, 2020 at 19:05:38, Mike Thomsen ([email protected]) > > wrote: > > > > > > > As teammates and friends, it was an easy change, even if code was > > > involved. And I assume much easier than having the courage to ask for > it. > > > > > > Ironically, around the same time I had a colleague who was like the > evil > > > opposite of that. Friend is the last word any of us would use to > describe > > > him. He was a cautionary tale in why teams have to also maintain > defense > > > mechanisms against toxic people who exploit empathy as a power play; > > it's a > > > common tactic of abusers/toxic people to make demands on people to > change > > > their behavior to see how compliant they are. That former colleague, if > > you > > > got them talking about their views, could wax eloquent about tolerance, > > > inclusiveness, etc. and then without a hint of irony turn around and > > wage a > > > one man war on everyone else. > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:53 AM Joey Frazee <[email protected] > > > .invalid> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > I’m repeating this from elsewhere but I was on a team 7 years ago > > where a > > > > teammate asked us to stop using master and slave terminology, even > > master > > > > alone, because it made them uncomfortable. I can’t estimate how > common > > > that > > > > feeling is but this isn’t a theoretical exercise. As teammates and > > > friends, > > > > it was an easy change, even if code was involved. And I assume much > > > easier > > > > than having the courage to ask for it. > > > > > > > > I’d say it’s also important to note that “but that’s not the original > > > > intended word sense” doesn’t alleviate that alienating experience. > > While > > > > potentially a matter of fact of the intent for some uses, “I want to > > use > > > > that word” is pretty unfriendly stacked against “that makes me feel > > > > unwelcome”. > > > > > > > > Two guidelines from the code of conduct seem particularly apropos: > > > > > > > > - Be empathetic, welcoming, friendly, and patient > > > > > > > > - Be careful in the words that we choose > > > > > > > > AFAICT there’s not an escape hatch for code, tools, or effort. > > > > > > > > -joey > > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 2020, 10:05 AM -0500, Edward Armes < > [email protected] > > >, > > > > wrote: > > > > > I agree with this, and maybe that is the potential the step forward > > > here > > > > > is: issue a statement is issued saying something like this is a > > complex > > > > > issue and instead of making changes that could cause further > division > > > > > within the community we are looking for those that are interested > to > > > help > > > > > form a constructive working group that will help influence and > > resolve > > > > all > > > > > of these issues in a positive way for all not only for project but > > also > > > > > within the wider group of apache projects. > > > > > > > > > > Edward > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, 11:17 [email protected], <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Language is always changing and the meaning of words is changing, > > > > > > sometimes positively and sometimes negatively. > > > > > > I think that now is time for change again and we should discuss > the > > > use > > > > > > of phrases and meanings. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course we should change "Master Branch" to "Main Branch". > > > > > > But I also think that we shouldn't just make quick changes > because > > > it's > > > > > > opportune and hastily change a few words. > > > > > > > > > > > > An example: We could change Master/Slave to Leader/Follower. This > > may > > > > be > > > > > > a perfect choice for most people in the world. > > > > > > In German Leader is the English word for "Führer". And it is > > > precisely > > > > > > this word that we in Germany do not actually want to use for it. > > > > > > > > > > > > What I mean is that every country and every group (e.g. religion > > > etc.) > > > > > > has its own history and certain words or phrases are just not a > > > perfect > > > > > > choice. > > > > > > We should try to go the ethically correct way worldwide. > > > > > > > > > > > > This concerns the adaptation of current words and phrases with a > > view > > > > to > > > > > > all: in English, Indian, Chinese, German etc. but also for > > indigenous > > > > > > peoples, different religions etc. > > > > > > And cultural differences should also be taken into account. > > > > > > > > > > > > What I would wish for: > > > > > > Apache.org should set up an "Ethics Board". A group of people of > > > > > > different genders, all colors, religions and from different > > countries > > > > > > and cultures all over our world. > > > > > > This Ethics Board should find good and for no one discriminating > > > words > > > > > > or phrases for all the areas that stand out today as offensive. > > > > > > > > > > > > And it would be nice if not only computer scientists > participated, > > > but > > > > > > also ethicists, philosophers, engineers, various religious > people, > > > > > > chemists, biologists, physicists, sociologists, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > And this Council should set binding targets for all projects. > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 18.06.2020 um 09:36 schrieb Pierre Villard: > > > > > > > > In my perspective this should be an issue for the entire > > > community. > > > > > > Being > > > > > > > > able to identify an issue that directly affects another > person > > > but > > > > not > > > > > > > > one’s self is the definition of privilege. If I can look at > how > > > > the use > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > these words in someone’s daily life or career impacts them > > > > negatively, > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > the change would not harm me at all, I see that as a failure > on > > > my > > > > > > part. I > > > > > > > > understand the desire to hear from the silent majority, but > > > active > > > > > > > > participation and discussion on the mailing list is the exact > > > > measure > > > > > > > > described by the Apache process for participation in the > > > community. > > > > > > Those > > > > > > > > who speak here are the ones who will have a voice. > > > > > > > I could not agree more with the above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le jeu. 18 juin 2020 à 04:29, Tony Kurc <[email protected]> a > > écrit > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose I was a bit remiss in not unwinding and/or > > summarizing > > > > some of > > > > > > > > what was in that yetus thread to prime the discussion, but a > > some > > > > of > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > Andy is mentioning is expanded on a bit in this ietf document > > > [1], > > > > > > which is > > > > > > > > linked in one of the articles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 10:02 PM Andy LoPresto < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Edward, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’ll reply > > inline. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Some of the terms proposed are not industry standard > and > > > may > > > > > > > > > potentially > > > > > > > > > > cause significant issue for non-english speakers. > > > > > > > > > I actually believe making these changes will _improve_ the > > > > clarity for > > > > > > > > > non-english speakers. “Whitelist” and “blacklist” confer no > > > > inherent > > > > > > > > reason > > > > > > > > > to mean allow and deny other than connotative biases. > “Allow” > > > and > > > > > > “deny” > > > > > > > > > explicitly indicate the verb that is happening. Another > > example > > > > is > > > > > > branch > > > > > > > > > naming. “Masters” don’t have “branches”. “Trunks” do. These > > > > terms make > > > > > > > > > _more_ sense for a non-English speaker than the current > > terms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - For each change that is made can we guarantee that we > > will > > > > not lose > > > > > > > > > > clarity of meaning, and then have revert the change down > > the > > > > line if > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > change causes a drop in usage. > > > > > > > > > I don’t expect the community will opt to change the new > terms > > > > back to > > > > > > > > ones > > > > > > > > > with negative connotations in the future. If there is > > > discussion > > > > about > > > > > > > > it, > > > > > > > > > this thread will provide good historical context for why > the > > > > decision > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > made to change it, just as the mailing list discussions do > > for > > > > other > > > > > > code > > > > > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Of what percentage of people is this truly an issue for > > and > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > percentage isn't. Any change that has the potential to > > cause > > > a > > > > major > > > > > > > > > split > > > > > > > > > > in the community, there must be as close as possible to a > > > > majority, > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > just from those that are vocal and active on the mailing > > > lists. > > > > > > > > > > Disscustions on other groups are turning toxic, and in > some > > > > cases are > > > > > > > > > > potentially leading to the collapse of these projects > where > > > > these > > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > > > are being implemented with what appears to be without the > > > > agreement of > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > signifficant chunk of the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my perspective this should be an issue for the entire > > > > community. > > > > > > Being > > > > > > > > > able to identify an issue that directly affects another > > person > > > > but not > > > > > > > > > one’s self is the definition of privilege. If I can look at > > how > > > > the use > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > these words in someone’s daily life or career impacts them > > > > negatively, > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > the change would not harm me at all, I see that as a > failure > > on > > > > my > > > > > > part. > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > understand the desire to hear from the silent majority, but > > > > active > > > > > > > > > participation and discussion on the mailing list is the > exact > > > > measure > > > > > > > > > described by the Apache process for participation in the > > > > community. > > > > > > Those > > > > > > > > > who speak here are the ones who will have a voice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - From a personal perspective, I sit on the autism > spectrum > > > > and have > > > > > > > > > grown > > > > > > > > > > up with people using words that are very offensive and > have > > > > hurt me > > > > > > > > > badly. > > > > > > > > > > Instead of having these words as offensive and > untouchable. > > > > Myself and > > > > > > > > > > others have instead made these words our own and made > them > > > > lose the > > > > > > > > > > negative connotations they have. As such, I do find the > > > current > > > > > > > > > > disscustions deeply alarming and feels like they start to > > > > border into > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > realm of censorship. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it’s admirable that you have responded to negative > > > > > > circumstances > > > > > > > > > in that way. I also recognize that not everyone has that > > > > opportunity. > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > can take these actions as a community to improve the > > experience > > > > for > > > > > > > > others, > > > > > > > > > I am in favor of that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - One final point (and potentially controversial), A good > > > > chunk of the > > > > > > > > > > wording that is proposed to be changed. Is being done so > on > > > the > > > > > > > > > > "modern"/"street" definition of these words and not the > > > actual > > > > > > > > > definition. > > > > > > > > > > Language should change and evolve to introduce clarity, > but > > > > right now > > > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > > > > this change improve the clarity across the engineering > > sector > > > > and I > > > > > > > > > believe > > > > > > > > > > it won't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’ll paraphrase Emily Kager here with “developers spend an > > > > inordinate > > > > > > > > > amount of time and energy arguing about the meaning and > > > > semantics of > > > > > > > > > variable and method names, but pretend exclusionary terms > are > > > > > > > > meaningless.” > > > > > > > > > [1] If we can expend that much energy deciding if a method > > > > creates vs. > > > > > > > > > builds vs. forms an imaginary concept like a > > > > > > > > > LibraryFrameworkWrapperDecorator, I refuse to concede that > we > > > > can and > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > fact should do so with the terms that actually affect our > > > > community > > > > > > > > > members’ lives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > https://twitter.com/EmilyKager/status/1271102865889734656 > > > < > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/EmilyKager/status/1271102865889734656> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andy LoPresto > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > He/Him > > > > > > > > > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B > 2F7D > > > > EF69 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 6:43 PM, Edward Armes < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This is a difficult issue and causes no small amount of > > > > friction every > > > > > > > > > > time. I'm personally against this for the following > > reassons: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Some of the terms proposed are not industry standard > and > > > may > > > > > > > > > potentially > > > > > > > > > > cause significant issue for non-english speakers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - For each change that is made can we guarantee that we > > will > > > > not lose > > > > > > > > > > clarity of meaning, and then have revert the change down > > the > > > > line if > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > change causes a drop in usage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Of what percentage of people is this truly an issue for > > and > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > percentage isn't. Any change that has the potential to > > cause > > > a > > > > major > > > > > > > > > split > > > > > > > > > > in the community, there must be as close as possible to a > > > > majority, > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > just from those that are vocal and active on the mailing > > > lists. > > > > > > > > > > Disscustions on other groups are turning toxic, and in > some > > > > cases are > > > > > > > > > > potentially leading to the collapse of these projects > where > > > > these > > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > > > are being implemented with what appears to be without the > > > > agreement of > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > signifficant chunk of the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - From a personal perspective, I sit on the autism > spectrum > > > > and have > > > > > > > > > grown > > > > > > > > > > up with people using words that are very offensive and > have > > > > hurt me > > > > > > > > > badly. > > > > > > > > > > Instead of having these words as offensive and > untouchable. > > > > Myself and > > > > > > > > > > others have instead made these words our own and made > them > > > > lose the > > > > > > > > > > negative connotations they have. As such, I do find the > > > current > > > > > > > > > > disscustions deeply alarming and feels like they start to > > > > border into > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > realm of censorship. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - One final point (and potentially controversial), A good > > > > chunk of the > > > > > > > > > > wording that is proposed to be changed. Is being done so > on > > > the > > > > > > > > > > "modern"/"street" definition of these words and not the > > > actual > > > > > > > > > definition. > > > > > > > > > > Language should change and evolve to introduce clarity, > but > > > > right now > > > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > > > > this change improve the clarity across the engineering > > sector > > > > and I > > > > > > > > > believe > > > > > > > > > > it won't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edward > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, 01:11 Andy LoPresto, < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I am a proponent of making this change and also using > > > > allow/deny > > > > > > list, > > > > > > > > > > > meddler-in-the-middle, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a blog [1] with easy instructions for executing > > the > > > > change in > > > > > > > > > git, > > > > > > > > > > > although I don’t know if there is any > Apache-integration > > > > specific > > > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > > > > we would also need. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.hanselman.com/blog/EasilyRenameYourGitDefaultBranchFromMasterToMain.aspx > > > > > > > > > > > Andy LoPresto > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > He/Him > > > > > > > > > > > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E > F65B > > > > 2F7D EF69 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect it would be fairly easy to make this > change. > > We > > > > do, I > > > > > > > > think, > > > > > > > > > > > > have whitelist/blacklist in there somewhere but im > not > > > > sure how > > > > > > > > > involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:04 PM Tony Kurc < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've seen the discussion started on other projects > > > > [1][2], so I > > > > > > > > wanted > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > kick off a discussion to determine whether this is > > > > something nifi > > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > > > > look at too. Allen Wittenauer's post to yetus > > captures > > > > the why and > > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > the how, so rather than copy and pasting, you can > > take > > > a > > > > look at > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > he's > > > > > > > > > > > > > done. Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rd38afa9fb6c0dcd77d1a677f1152b7398b3bda93c9106b3393149d10%40%3Cdev.yetus.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0825eec0c84296bdab7cf898a987f06355443241ca02b2aaa51d3ef9%40%3Cdev.accumulo.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
