After a quick review, in nifi, I wasn't able to find references to the properties Joe mentioned, but I did use crude recursive greps to look. A majority of the blacklist references were in wali in method names and log messages. Picking a more useful term in wali would probably make sense. I'll make a jira, but we'd need to be a bit more deliberate about when that change could happen, no? Long story short, since assumptions were maybe a bit off (i.e. not an additive change), I think a later release may make sense.
There was a blacklist property in nifi-cpp. I'll make a jira and work on a pr for that. Most prevalent in my grep analysis related to master/slave were carrying over terms from dependencies (e.g. MySQL, zookeeper, or third-party libs in nifi-cpp) and "master key" crypt related stuff. On Mon, Jul 6, 2020, 6:02 PM Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike, > I did a quick check to see if anyone had done a jira or pr for #2, so I'll > take a stab at doing that today. > > Tony > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:27 PM Mike Thomsen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Didn't see any commits or PRs for any of these yet. Do we want to consider >> these blockers for 1.12 or hold off until a post 1.12 release? >> >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:48 PM Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Not that I'm aware of. All this so far just looks really easy to deal >> > with. >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:46 AM Mike Thomsen <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Out of curiosity... are there any cases you've found where we might >> have >> > a >> > > term misalignment with what another product calls them? Like we might >> > have >> > > primary/replica and the supported system uses master/slave? >> > > >> > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:32 AM Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > > ...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 >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
