[no subject]

[Justin Holmes]

I want to retract my earlier statements regarding Jacob's (at the time,
seemingly hasty) reaction to Meira's comments. Two people have emailed me
off list about this matter, with one providing a quote of a horribly
bigoted passage from Meira:

'''
Black people refer to themselves "a person of color", and then even shorten
it: PoC. Isn't that a ridiculous acronym? If I were black, I would be
deadly offended if someone dared to call me "a person of color"! What's the
next step, "a person with skin color saturation level significantly higher
than of the majority of people living in european and asian part of the
world, as well as north and middle part of the north america, excluding
those who live in the south closer to Mexico and in Italy and in Caucasia
and/or spend a lot of time in the sun"?
'''

As such, I think that a warning and reminder about the CoC is entirely
appropriate.  I don't think that a ban is in order, but I now understand
Jacob's reaction.  My apologies, Jacob.

-- 
Justin Holmes
Chief Chocobo Breeder, slashRoot

slashRoot: Coffee House and Tech Dojo
New Paltz, NY 12561
845.633.8330

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAMGywB4kVQwsoX3anbi0wTp40HzVRm50aw7-3qMsscvQX7gOvA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "Master/slave terminology"

[Russell Keith-Magee]

Hi Justin,

This email thread was not Meira's only contribution to the debate. In my
opinion, if you take the rest of her contributions into account, and the
general direction the debate was taking at the time, a reminder to her and
others about the existence and consequences of the code of conduct was
entirely justified.

Yours,
Russ Magee %-)



On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Justin Holmes 
wrote:

> Although Meira's comments are disagreeable to me, and in at least one case
> clearly factually incorrect, she has not come close to violating the code
> of conduct.  Nor has she been particularly disrespectful.  To even talk
> abut banning her is absurd, particularly in a thread whose subject is
> developing inclusive language.
>
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss 
> wrote:
>
>> Meira, your position has been made abundantly clear, and now your
>> behavior is treading dangerously close to the line. I'll remind you and
>> others of our community's code of conduct (
>> https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/), which specifically requires
>> that we be welcoming, friendly, patient, and respectful. Meira, you're not
>> doing a great job on any of these, specifically the respect.
>>
>> Again you've made your point, and thank you for it. We all know where you
>> stand. Now it's time for you to withdraw from this thread.
>>
>> I don't want to ban you from the list, but I will if I need to.
>>
>> Jacob
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Meira  wrote:
>>
>>> I meant legally, of course. It is illegal now. Should we ban the word
>>> "drugstore" too, maybe?
>>>
>>> I previously pointed out that I'm aware of the fact that there still is
>>> slavery in one form or another. I also mentioned that I don't believe this
>>> change made django more attractive for any of the current slaves.
>>> Not even single slave's life was in any way improved by a free person
>>> complaining about a server being called "slave".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 12:16:27 AM UTC+7, Alex_Gaynor wrote:




 On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Meira  wrote:

> I think it makes more sense to count reasonable arguments of both
> sides, not the people who thumb up in the comments (by the way, those who
> thumb up are mostly Americans, isn't that discrimination?)
> If using the word "slave" is immediately associated with racism, it's
> a sign that we might have too many Americans in the topic, because for me,
> "slave" is not equal to "black slave". Maybe it's because we have too many
> bears and too few black folks in my country, but we did have (practically)
> slavery, too.
>
> I also have a problem with the phrase "inclusive language". Who
> exactly was "included" by this change? I highly doubt that there was a
> slave who started using django after the change. It seems to me, it's the
> American historical guilt playing a huge role here.
>
> It's an old misconception, it seems that if we change the words, we'll
> change the reality. By banning the word "slave", you cannot cancel the 
> fact
> that for many years, black people in the US were treated worse than
> animals. I don't think that an attempt to forget that fact by aggressively
> labeling words as "racist" is "inclusive" or "positive".
> I actually think that remembering bad things that are now history
> should encourage people to be a little nicer to each other at the moment.
>
> We had slavery, and now we don't. It has nothing to do with databases
> :)
>
>
 This is factually incorrect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#
 Present_day


>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:54:16 PM UTC+7, Daniele Procida wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 27, 2014, Andromeda Yelton 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Which is a little beside the point as the process for merging PRs is
>> not,
>> >in fact, democracy.  But is also fantastic, because I've spent the
>> last
>> >week reading TRAC and hanging out here and talking to lots of people
>> trying
>> >to figure out if Django will be a safe place for me to contribute.
>>  And
>> >when I see that large a fraction of commenters come down on the side
>> of
>> >inclusivity, I feel like "django developer" is a hat I can put on.
>>
>> If we get a single more person contributing to Django as a result, I
>> would consider this whole episode as being entirely worth it.
>>
>> Not that I think it's a sustainable strategy in the long term, of
>> course.
>>
>> Daniele
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to 

Re: "Master/slave terminology"

[Justin Holmes]

OK, I guess I'll weigh in on the substance.

The thing about "master" and "slave" is not (or at least not only) that
they refer to a sociopolitical configuration that is objectionable (for
example, the institutionally racist forms of slavery that have occurred in
many parts of the world throughout history).  It's that the interpersonal
dynamic of "master" and "slave" is itself abhorrent, absent its
implications or reminders.

On one hand, I am OK with regarding a machine (say, a database server) as
an utter servant.  I want a future in which machines are not granted the
leeways that humans have in the names of liberty and justice.  It's not
difficult to imagine a number of dystopic scenarios built atop a world in
which machine sovereignty is a trojan horse.

On the other hand, the words "master" and "slave," as they refer to
distributed database systems, are not actual a reference to the roles of
machines, but instead are a metaphor to describe our belief about how this
abstraction is to be regarded.  In this sense, "master" and "slave" are not
particularly accurate.  The other suggestions on these two threads all
communicate a more expressive metaphor for the way we want distributed
databases to work.

Finally (albeit perhaps tangentially), it is telling that, almost without
exception, detractors from this change regard slavery as either having
ended, being now illegal, or being something other than a really big deal.
Slavery, even in the United States, is not illegal.   The 13th amendment to
the US constitution specifically includes an exception to the ban on
slavery, allowing it "as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted."  There are currently more people - and more
people of color - living under slavery of this type now than at any point
prior to the civil war.  Of these, an abhorrently large number are subject
to this condition as "punishment for crime" which many if not all of us can
agree is not justly regarded as a crime at all.

If, in some small way, this shift in language can signal that we regard not
only the historical implications of the word "slave" but in fact the very
relationship structure described by "slave" and "master," we've done a good
thing.


On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Justin Holmes 
wrote:

> Although Meira's comments are disagreeable to me, and in at least one case
> clearly factually incorrect, she has not come close to violating the code
> of conduct.  Nor has she been particularly disrespectful.  To even talk
> abut banning her is absurd, particularly in a thread whose subject is
> developing inclusive language.
>
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss 
> wrote:
>
>> Meira, your position has been made abundantly clear, and now your
>> behavior is treading dangerously close to the line. I'll remind you and
>> others of our community's code of conduct (
>> https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/), which specifically requires
>> that we be welcoming, friendly, patient, and respectful. Meira, you're not
>> doing a great job on any of these, specifically the respect.
>>
>> Again you've made your point, and thank you for it. We all know where you
>> stand. Now it's time for you to withdraw from this thread.
>>
>> I don't want to ban you from the list, but I will if I need to.
>>
>> Jacob
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Meira  wrote:
>>
>>> I meant legally, of course. It is illegal now. Should we ban the word
>>> "drugstore" too, maybe?
>>>
>>> I previously pointed out that I'm aware of the fact that there still is
>>> slavery in one form or another. I also mentioned that I don't believe this
>>> change made django more attractive for any of the current slaves.
>>> Not even single slave's life was in any way improved by a free person
>>> complaining about a server being called "slave".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 12:16:27 AM UTC+7, Alex_Gaynor wrote:




 On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Meira  wrote:

> I think it makes more sense to count reasonable arguments of both
> sides, not the people who thumb up in the comments (by the way, those who
> thumb up are mostly Americans, isn't that discrimination?)
> If using the word "slave" is immediately associated with racism, it's
> a sign that we might have too many Americans in the topic, because for me,
> "slave" is not equal to "black slave". Maybe it's because we have too many
> bears and too few black folks in my country, but we did have (practically)
> slavery, too.
>
> I also have a problem with the phrase "inclusive language". Who
> exactly was "included" by this change? I highly doubt that there was a
> slave who started using django after the change. It seems to me, it's the
> American historical guilt playing a huge role here.
>
> It's an old misconception, it seems that if we 

Re: Changing development server threads type.

[Ramiro Morales]

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Tim Graham  wrote:
> I think we should try to move away from maintaining our own web server and
> focus our efforts on trying to integration with others like gunicorn
> (#21978).

For this particular change I'd go with what Moayad proposes but
without the backward compatibility command line switch (assuming it
actually enhance the reloadind responsiveness).

This essentially reduces it to a one-liner.

I agree with Tim about being -1 on other kind of changes which mean
adding code to the development web server plus it maintenance burden
(like for the OS-specific FS change detection mechanism, moving the
console output to happen via logging, etc.).

Regards,

-- 
Ramiro Morales
@ramiromorales

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAO7PdF-uWkm8XAZyV4HkwaB%2Bm5p70POPOwmWtOB5UAH10K%2Be4g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "Master/slave terminology"

[Justin Holmes]

Although Meira's comments are disagreeable to me, and in at least one case
clearly factually incorrect, she has not come close to violating the code
of conduct.  Nor has she been particularly disrespectful.  To even talk
abut banning her is absurd, particularly in a thread whose subject is
developing inclusive language.


On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss 
wrote:

> Meira, your position has been made abundantly clear, and now your behavior
> is treading dangerously close to the line. I'll remind you and others of
> our community's code of conduct (https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/),
> which specifically requires that we be welcoming, friendly, patient, and
> respectful. Meira, you're not doing a great job on any of these,
> specifically the respect.
>
> Again you've made your point, and thank you for it. We all know where you
> stand. Now it's time for you to withdraw from this thread.
>
> I don't want to ban you from the list, but I will if I need to.
>
> Jacob
>
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Meira  wrote:
>
>> I meant legally, of course. It is illegal now. Should we ban the word
>> "drugstore" too, maybe?
>>
>> I previously pointed out that I'm aware of the fact that there still is
>> slavery in one form or another. I also mentioned that I don't believe this
>> change made django more attractive for any of the current slaves.
>> Not even single slave's life was in any way improved by a free person
>> complaining about a server being called "slave".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 12:16:27 AM UTC+7, Alex_Gaynor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Meira  wrote:
>>>
 I think it makes more sense to count reasonable arguments of both
 sides, not the people who thumb up in the comments (by the way, those who
 thumb up are mostly Americans, isn't that discrimination?)
 If using the word "slave" is immediately associated with racism, it's a
 sign that we might have too many Americans in the topic, because for me,
 "slave" is not equal to "black slave". Maybe it's because we have too many
 bears and too few black folks in my country, but we did have (practically)
 slavery, too.

 I also have a problem with the phrase "inclusive language". Who exactly
 was "included" by this change? I highly doubt that there was a slave who
 started using django after the change. It seems to me, it's the American
 historical guilt playing a huge role here.

 It's an old misconception, it seems that if we change the words, we'll
 change the reality. By banning the word "slave", you cannot cancel the fact
 that for many years, black people in the US were treated worse than
 animals. I don't think that an attempt to forget that fact by aggressively
 labeling words as "racist" is "inclusive" or "positive".
 I actually think that remembering bad things that are now history
 should encourage people to be a little nicer to each other at the moment.

 We had slavery, and now we don't. It has nothing to do with databases :)


>>> This is factually incorrect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#
>>> Present_day
>>>
>>>



 On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:54:16 PM UTC+7, Daniele Procida wrote:

> On Tue, May 27, 2014, Andromeda Yelton  wrote:
>
> >Which is a little beside the point as the process for merging PRs is
> not,
> >in fact, democracy.  But is also fantastic, because I've spent the
> last
> >week reading TRAC and hanging out here and talking to lots of people
> trying
> >to figure out if Django will be a safe place for me to contribute.
>  And
> >when I see that large a fraction of commenters come down on the side
> of
> >inclusivity, I feel like "django developer" is a hat I can put on.
>
> If we get a single more person contributing to Django as a result, I
> would consider this whole episode as being entirely worth it.
>
> Not that I think it's a sustainable strategy in the long term, of
> course.
>
> Daniele
>
>  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "Django developers" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.

 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
 To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
 msgid/django-developers/4da37237-adb4-49bd-b710-
 280dda186aea%40googlegroups.com
 
 .

 For more options, visit 

Re: Changing development server threads type.

[Tim Graham]

I think we should try to move away from maintaining our own web server and 
focus our efforts on trying to integration with others like gunicorn (#21978 
).

On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 12:43:19 AM UTC-4, Moayad Mardini wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The development server currently uses "non-daemon threads" for 
> the socketserver, this has many bad side effects, as discussed in ticket 
> #21773 ( https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/21773 ).
> The most annoying disadvantages of that are:
> 1) Longer time to restart, because the sever has to make sure everything 
> is finished before it can auto-reload, I don't think this is a good 
> behavior because since it's a development server, you are always 
> intentionally causing the auto-reload.
> 2) If something goes wrong, like a bad view, there is no way to quit or 
> restart the server, without manually killing its process from the OS.
>
> I made a patch: https://github.com/django/django/pull/2690 that changes 
> the default threads type of the server to be daemon threads, and introduced 
> a command option "runserver --nodaemon" to use non-daemon threads if the 
> user still prefers that for one reason or another.
>
> I'm aware that the core developers are reluctant to merge any big change 
> without a discussion first, so I'm asking about your opinions about that 
> change and the patch.
>
> Thanks a lot,
>
> Moayad
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/22ae2294-9a70-4982-acca-d9fb8cf7db7d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.