Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Ethan Furman]

This thread is closed.

--
~Ethan~
Python List Moderator
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Ian Kelly]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:18 PM Chris Angelico  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:05 AM Ian Kelly  wrote:
> >
> > You're objecting to people trying to do *something* positive on the
> > grounds that they're not doing *more* while you yourself are doing
> > *nothing*. That's pretty hypocritical.
>
> You're assuming that it's something positive that's being done. That
> is an unproven assertion. I'm objecting to people creating churn on
> the grounds that they're not accomplishing anything.

The goal is promoting respect and dignity within the workplace, and
more generally within our field. If you can't see how this advances
that, then I have nothing further to say. You might ask yourself,
though: why are you so invested in this that you would not only refuse
to change anything yourself, but also would throw up a resistance when
others try to make a simple documentation rewording?

One other thing. This is difficult for me to respond to, but I feel it
has to be done:

> Actually, if a human slave is being treated as someone who has no
> will, no autonomy, no power to choose anything, s/he IS being treated
> as a computer, and my point is to highlight that. Think about how you
> treat your computers - you have the power to discard them if they do
> not work correctly, or even if you just want to get a newer one. You
> have the power to kick them across the room and nobody will arrest
> you. Maybe you don't do those things (I would hope you don't kick
> computers around), but the computer has no say in that. Am I
> trivializing slavery? Or am I using a descriptive term that is
> actually more accurate than you dare acknowledge?

Yes, you can kick your computer across the room if it's not working.
The difference with a computer is that you don't have to; computers
are never willfully disobedient. Computers never have to be "broken"
in order to have value. Computers also don't have feelings or
experience pain. You can't punish a defiant computer by whipping it,
or starving it, or preventing it from sleeping, or making it sit in
its own waste. You can't punish it by separating it from its family or
keeping it in total isolation. You can't even just sell its family to
another computer-owner without even considering how it will feel about
that. You can't force a computer to adopt your own religion. You can't
lie to your computer in order to manipulate it. You can't make it a
promise of freedom that you know you will never keep.

If you think that a slave just means somebody who has no choice but to
do what they're told, then yes, I think that you're trivializing the
condition of slavery, and by comparing the victim to a simple object
like a computer, the very language that you're choosing is
dehumanizing.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Larry Martell]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Brian Oney via Python-list
 wrote:
> "I have a vewwy great fwiend in Wome called 'Biggus Dickus'"
> ...
> "Can I go now, sir?"

He has a wife, you know. You know what she's called? She's called...
'Incontinentia'. 'Incontinentia Buttocks'.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Chris Angelico]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:05 AM Ian Kelly  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:48 PM Chris Angelico  wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:36 PM Ian Kelly  wrote:
> > > So, Chris, what have *you personally* done about real slavery where it
> > > still happens?
> > >
> > > If, as I'm guessing, the answer is "nothing" then it seems to me that
> > > you don't have much of a leg to stand on to level this accusation.
> >
> > Am I demanding that the terminology be changed? No? Then I don't think
> > the accusation applies.
>
> You're objecting to people trying to do *something* positive on the
> grounds that they're not doing *more* while you yourself are doing
> *nothing*. That's pretty hypocritical.

You're assuming that it's something positive that's being done. That
is an unproven assertion. I'm objecting to people creating churn on
the grounds that they're not accomplishing anything.

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Ian Kelly]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:48 PM Chris Angelico  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:36 PM Ian Kelly  wrote:
> > So, Chris, what have *you personally* done about real slavery where it
> > still happens?
> >
> > If, as I'm guessing, the answer is "nothing" then it seems to me that
> > you don't have much of a leg to stand on to level this accusation.
>
> Am I demanding that the terminology be changed? No? Then I don't think
> the accusation applies.

You're objecting to people trying to do *something* positive on the
grounds that they're not doing *more* while you yourself are doing
*nothing*. That's pretty hypocritical.

> > Imagine if the terminology were instead "dominant / submissive".
> > Without meaning to assume too much, might the cultural context
> > surrounding those terms make you feel uncomfortable when using them?
> > Would you desire for something else to be used in their place? Well,
> > there are plenty of people who feel exactly that way about "master /
> > slave".
>
> I wouldn't care.

Then why not just use those terms instead?

> > Here's the reality: the change may be difficult for some while it's
> > happening, because people don't like being told that the way they're
> > accustomed to doing something is harmful. But a few years from now,
> > after everything has settled, nobody will be looking back at this and
> > saying "oh, I wish we still used master/slave in the documentation.
> > Primary/replica (or whatever else replaces it) just doesn't sound as
> > good."
> >
> > Honestly, it's absurd that this is even a debate. Let's just make the
> > change and get it over with.
>
> And what happens when "replica" becomes pejorative? Do we change words again?

I think it's pretty obvious why "slave" has a negative connotation.
Why on Earth would "replica" ever become pejorative?

I suppose in that case we would curse Philip K. Dick and start over again.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Brian Oney via Python-list]

> PS: I'm not a great fan of it, but I think we all know that off-topic is 
> in a way what this list excels at.
+1

An open source community thrives on being open. It also welcomes those who like 
to pick a fight for various, usually personal reasons.

Has any heard of that Python language? I hear they named it after a person's 
pretty snake. No? Okay.

"I have a vewwy great fwiend in Wome called 'Biggus Dickus'"
...
"Can I go now, sir?"

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Dan Purgert]

David Raymond wrote:
> [...]
> HAL.open(ship.pod_bay.doors)

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

RE: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[David Raymond]

...Think about how you treat your computers - you have the power to discard 
them if they do not work correctly, or even if you just want to get a newer 
one. You have the power to kick them across the room and nobody will arrest 
you. Maybe you don't do those things (I would hope you don't kick computers 
around), but the computer has no say in that...

...At least, not yet...

HAL.open(ship.pod_bay.doors)



-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Chris Angelico]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 1:28 AM Ian Kelly  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 7:49 AM Chris Angelico  wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:33 PM Ian Kelly  wrote:
> > >
> > > Care to give an example? The distinctive part of the definition of
> > > "slave" is that it refers to someone who is owned and/or held captive,
> > > and forced to work against their will. I can think of no situation in
> > > programming in which the word is particularly apt, because the trait
> > > of "lack of freedom" is just not something that comes up. There is
> > > always a word choice available that is not only more sensitive, but
> > > more accurate as well.
> >
> > Lack of freedom? That's exactly what happens *frequently* in any
> > job-farming situation. For instance, suppose you have an
> > embarrassingly parallel task to perform - let's say it's some kind of
> > search for correctness, where as soon as you attempt something, you
> > know whether it's correct or not. (Examples include crypto, searching
> > for prime numbers, finding patterns, etc, etc.) A master process hands
> > out tasks to slave processes; the slaves have no freedom, but must
> > simply do as they're told.
>
> The master also must do what it's told. This isn't a characterization
> of the relationship between processes; it's just the nature of
> programming.
>
> I see you addressed that point below, but note that subordinate
> processes *can* often reject tasks. It might be because "I ran out of
> memory", or it might be because "I'm already doing something", or even
> because "I hadn't heard from you in a while so I assumed there was a
> connectivity problem or that your process died, and I correspondingly
> initiated an election among my peers and now I'm the master node".

Yes, I do address the point, and what you've said here is proof that
"master" and "slave" indicate a relationship, not a permanent
situation. Computers and software can adopt an Elbonian approach to
slavery:

http://dilbert.com/strip/2010-08-28

> > Or you can slave a number of backup
> > database servers to a master, where the master is in charge of
> > everything, and the slaves simply follow orders, thus creating perfect
> > replicas. While it's sometimes correct to talk about "primary" and
> > "replica", it's also accurate to describe *all* the nodes as replicas
> > (since they're all identical); and it's entirely possible to have more
> > than one master, so there isn't really a "primary". So there certainly
> > are situations in which "slave" is absolutely precisely correct.
>
> Your conclusion does not follow. Just because "primary" is not always
> the best term does not mean that "slave" automatically fills the role.

No, it doesn't follow. I described some situations where it IS
correct, but there are of course times when it isn't. That's simply
the nature of technical terminology.

> "Servant" and "slave" do not have the same connotation. While it's
> generally rude or offensive to refer to an individual as a servant,
> the use of the word is not seen as a slight to an entire subculture.

And "server" doesn't have the same connotation either, yet they all
ultimately mean the same thing.

> > So rather than removing every trace of the word "slave", how about
> > instead we go the other way: use it in so many contexts that it loses
> > its sting everywhere except when referring to humans. In fact, make it
> > such that a human slave is "a person being treated like a computer",
> > and thus obviously lacking in basic human rights.
>
> How about we also plaster the swastika (another symbol that carries
> "another meaning") all over everything, all while insisting that it's
> just a good luck symbol and that it shouldn't be associated with Nazis
> forever, and force anybody who finds it offensive to "get over it" or
> suffer in silence. I don't mean to Godwin the thread, but this is no
> different than what you're proposing.

Only if you can demonstrate that you're using it in a technically-accurate way.

> Also: a human slave is not "a person being treated like a computer"
> and I find it highly disrespectful that you would move to trivialize
> slavery like that.

Actually, if a human slave is being treated as someone who has no
will, no autonomy, no power to choose anything, s/he IS being treated
as a computer, and my point is to highlight that. Think about how you
treat your computers - you have the power to discard them if they do
not work correctly, or even if you just want to get a newer one. You
have the power to kick them across the room and nobody will arrest
you. Maybe you don't do those things (I would hope you don't kick
computers around), but the computer has no say in that. Am I
trivializing slavery? Or am I using a descriptive term that is
actually more accurate than you dare acknowledge?

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

RE: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Schachner, Joseph]

This really is an amazing discussion.  I actually do understand why "master" 
and "slave" might make people uncomfortable, although the meaning is quite 
clear.  Perhaps we need a currently used alternative:
1) Captain and Private
2) Manager and employee
3) CEO and Peon
4) Controller and Controlled
5) Commander and executer

You might not like any of these. That's OK, my goal was just to show that the 
relationship can be expressed without using outdated terms that some find 
objectionable.
These all have pretty much the same relationship (first one says what to do, 
second one does it) but I think any one of them feels more "comfortable" 
now-a-days than Master and Slave.

--- Joe S.

-Original Message-
From: Paul Moore  
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 11:41 AM
To: Ian Kelly 
Cc: Python 
Subject: Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 16:30, Ian Kelly  wrote:

> Also: a human slave is not "a person being treated like a computer"
> and I find it highly disrespectful that you would move to trivialize 
> slavery like that.

I have no idea what it must feel like to be a slave (other than the trite and 
obvious idea that "it must be awful"). Unfortunately, debates like this do 
nothing to help me understand or empathise with the people suffering in that 
way, or people dealing with the aftermath of historical cases.

I'm more than happy to ensure that we are not causing pain or being 
disrespectful of the suffering of others, but rather than simply making the 
whole issue feel like a censorship debate, I'd rather we were helping people to 
understand and empathise, so that they would *of their own accord* act in an 
appropriate way. Self-censorship based on understanding and empathy is far more 
reasonable than any sort of externally-imposed rules.

But discussing what it means to be a slave, or the implications of slavery on 
our culture(s) is way off-topic for this list, so I'd prefer not to debate it 
further here. I'm sure anyone interested in understanding more can easily find 
more appropriate forums to participate in.

Paul

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Ian Kelly :

> The terminology should be changed because it's offensive, full stop.
> It may be normalized to many who are accustomed to it, but that
> doesn't make it any less offensive.
>
> Imagine if the terminology were instead "dominant / submissive".
> Without meaning to assume too much, might the cultural context
> surrounding those terms make you feel uncomfortable when using them?
> Would you desire for something else to be used in their place? Well,
> there are plenty of people who feel exactly that way about "master /
> slave".

I'm not a great fan of word taboos.

In particular, you can't ban a word just because someone gets offended
by it.

> Honestly, it's absurd that this is even a debate. Let's just make the
> change and get it over with.

I agree that this debate sounds absurd, satirical even.


Marko
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Paul Moore]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 16:30, Ian Kelly  wrote:

> Also: a human slave is not "a person being treated like a computer"
> and I find it highly disrespectful that you would move to trivialize
> slavery like that.

I have no idea what it must feel like to be a slave (other than the
trite and obvious idea that "it must be awful"). Unfortunately,
debates like this do nothing to help me understand or empathise with
the people suffering in that way, or people dealing with the aftermath
of historical cases.

I'm more than happy to ensure that we are not causing pain or being
disrespectful of the suffering of others, but rather than simply
making the whole issue feel like a censorship debate, I'd rather we
were helping people to understand and empathise, so that they would
*of their own accord* act in an appropriate way. Self-censorship based
on understanding and empathy is far more reasonable than any sort of
externally-imposed rules.

But discussing what it means to be a slave, or the implications of
slavery on our culture(s) is way off-topic for this list, so I'd
prefer not to debate it further here. I'm sure anyone interested in
understanding more can easily find more appropriate forums to
participate in.

Paul
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Ian Kelly]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 7:49 AM Chris Angelico  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:33 PM Ian Kelly  wrote:
> >
> > Care to give an example? The distinctive part of the definition of
> > "slave" is that it refers to someone who is owned and/or held captive,
> > and forced to work against their will. I can think of no situation in
> > programming in which the word is particularly apt, because the trait
> > of "lack of freedom" is just not something that comes up. There is
> > always a word choice available that is not only more sensitive, but
> > more accurate as well.
>
> Lack of freedom? That's exactly what happens *frequently* in any
> job-farming situation. For instance, suppose you have an
> embarrassingly parallel task to perform - let's say it's some kind of
> search for correctness, where as soon as you attempt something, you
> know whether it's correct or not. (Examples include crypto, searching
> for prime numbers, finding patterns, etc, etc.) A master process hands
> out tasks to slave processes; the slaves have no freedom, but must
> simply do as they're told.

The master also must do what it's told. This isn't a characterization
of the relationship between processes; it's just the nature of
programming.

I see you addressed that point below, but note that subordinate
processes *can* often reject tasks. It might be because "I ran out of
memory", or it might be because "I'm already doing something", or even
because "I hadn't heard from you in a while so I assumed there was a
connectivity problem or that your process died, and I correspondingly
initiated an election among my peers and now I'm the master node".

> Or you can slave a number of backup
> database servers to a master, where the master is in charge of
> everything, and the slaves simply follow orders, thus creating perfect
> replicas. While it's sometimes correct to talk about "primary" and
> "replica", it's also accurate to describe *all* the nodes as replicas
> (since they're all identical); and it's entirely possible to have more
> than one master, so there isn't really a "primary". So there certainly
> are situations in which "slave" is absolutely precisely correct.

Your conclusion does not follow. Just because "primary" is not always
the best term does not mean that "slave" automatically fills the role.

> Technically, *all* computers lack freedom. But in order to make a
> useful distinction here, it's easiest to define "slave" as something
> that follows the orders of another program, having no *human*
> interaction - in other words, "autonomy" really means "taking orders
> from a human". So it's really a hierarchy, with humans at the top, and
> a cascade of masters giving orders to slaves, and sometimes those
> slaves are themselves the masters of other slaves. (Consider the
> Gospel of Matthew, chapter 8, in which Jesus talks to a centurion
> about the meaning of authority; the centurion, being a military man,
> understands that being a master does not mean he never takes orders.)
> The terms "master" and "slave" refer to a specific relationship
> between two programs or machines, just as "server" and "client" do (my
> program could be an X11 client and an HTTP server, for instance).
> Actually, "server" literally means the same thing as "servant" or
> "slave", and the only reason it hasn't been excised from the language
> is that somehow the non-offensive meaning has become sufficiently
> dominant that people would laugh at the implication that it should be
> removed.

"Servant" and "slave" do not have the same connotation. While it's
generally rude or offensive to refer to an individual as a servant,
the use of the word is not seen as a slight to an entire subculture.

> So rather than removing every trace of the word "slave", how about
> instead we go the other way: use it in so many contexts that it loses
> its sting everywhere except when referring to humans. In fact, make it
> such that a human slave is "a person being treated like a computer",
> and thus obviously lacking in basic human rights.

How about we also plaster the swastika (another symbol that carries
"another meaning") all over everything, all while insisting that it's
just a good luck symbol and that it shouldn't be associated with Nazis
forever, and force anybody who finds it offensive to "get over it" or
suffer in silence. I don't mean to Godwin the thread, but this is no
different than what you're proposing.

Also: a human slave is not "a person being treated like a computer"
and I find it highly disrespectful that you would move to trivialize
slavery like that.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Chris Angelico]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:33 PM Ian Kelly  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:01 AM David Palao  wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > My opinion is that the terms "master/slave" describe well some situations.
> > They could be seen by some people as offensive (although unfortunately
> > sometimes true, even today) when applied to persons. But it is not
> > offensive when applied to processes in a computer. They are not living
> > entities.
> >
> > I would say that when talking about programming, the terms have a
> > perfect meaning.
>
> Care to give an example? The distinctive part of the definition of
> "slave" is that it refers to someone who is owned and/or held captive,
> and forced to work against their will. I can think of no situation in
> programming in which the word is particularly apt, because the trait
> of "lack of freedom" is just not something that comes up. There is
> always a word choice available that is not only more sensitive, but
> more accurate as well.

Lack of freedom? That's exactly what happens *frequently* in any
job-farming situation. For instance, suppose you have an
embarrassingly parallel task to perform - let's say it's some kind of
search for correctness, where as soon as you attempt something, you
know whether it's correct or not. (Examples include crypto, searching
for prime numbers, finding patterns, etc, etc.) A master process hands
out tasks to slave processes; the slaves have no freedom, but must
simply do as they're told. Or you can slave a number of backup
database servers to a master, where the master is in charge of
everything, and the slaves simply follow orders, thus creating perfect
replicas. While it's sometimes correct to talk about "primary" and
"replica", it's also accurate to describe *all* the nodes as replicas
(since they're all identical); and it's entirely possible to have more
than one master, so there isn't really a "primary". So there certainly
are situations in which "slave" is absolutely precisely correct.

Technically, *all* computers lack freedom. But in order to make a
useful distinction here, it's easiest to define "slave" as something
that follows the orders of another program, having no *human*
interaction - in other words, "autonomy" really means "taking orders
from a human". So it's really a hierarchy, with humans at the top, and
a cascade of masters giving orders to slaves, and sometimes those
slaves are themselves the masters of other slaves. (Consider the
Gospel of Matthew, chapter 8, in which Jesus talks to a centurion
about the meaning of authority; the centurion, being a military man,
understands that being a master does not mean he never takes orders.)
The terms "master" and "slave" refer to a specific relationship
between two programs or machines, just as "server" and "client" do (my
program could be an X11 client and an HTTP server, for instance).
Actually, "server" literally means the same thing as "servant" or
"slave", and the only reason it hasn't been excised from the language
is that somehow the non-offensive meaning has become sufficiently
dominant that people would laugh at the implication that it should be
removed.

So rather than removing every trace of the word "slave", how about
instead we go the other way: use it in so many contexts that it loses
its sting everywhere except when referring to humans. In fact, make it
such that a human slave is "a person being treated like a computer",
and thus obviously lacking in basic human rights.

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Ian Kelly]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:01 AM David Palao  wrote:
>
> Hello,
> My opinion is that the terms "master/slave" describe well some situations.
> They could be seen by some people as offensive (although unfortunately
> sometimes true, even today) when applied to persons. But it is not
> offensive when applied to processes in a computer. They are not living
> entities.
>
> I would say that when talking about programming, the terms have a
> perfect meaning.

Care to give an example? The distinctive part of the definition of
"slave" is that it refers to someone who is owned and/or held captive,
and forced to work against their will. I can think of no situation in
programming in which the word is particularly apt, because the trait
of "lack of freedom" is just not something that comes up. There is
always a word choice available that is not only more sensitive, but
more accurate as well.

> Otherwise, what is the correct way to use the words
> master and slave? Not using them?

That would be my recommendation. Instead you could use "primary /
replica" or "primary / secondary" or "manager / subordinate" or
"client / agent" or whatever other word pair is appropriate for the
particular situation.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Léo El Amri via Python-list]

On 26/09/2018 06:34, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Chris Angelico  wrote:
>> What I know about them is that they (and I am assuming there are
>> multiple people, because there are reports of multiple reports, if
>> that makes sense) are agitating for changes to documentation without
>> any real backing.
> 
> The terminology should be changed because it's offensive, full stop.
> It may be normalized to many who are accustomed to it, but that
> doesn't make it any less offensive.

Come on ! I have nothing to add to what Terry said:
https://bugs.python.org/msg324773

Now, the bug report is still pointing out some places in the code where
the master/slave terminology is misused, for _technical_ reasons. And
none of us should be blinded by the non-technical motive of the
bug-report. We should do what we have to do, and just let sink the rest
of it.

> Imagine if the terminology were instead "dominant / submissive".
> Without meaning to assume too much, might the cultural context
> surrounding those terms make you feel uncomfortable when using them?

I couldn't care less as well. The meaning of words is given by the context.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[D'Arcy Cain]

On 9/26/18 3:58 AM, David Palao wrote:
> Hello,
> My opinion is that the terms "master/slave" describe well some situations.
> They could be seen by some people as offensive (although unfortunately
> sometimes true, even today) when applied to persons. But it is not
> offensive when applied to processes in a computer. They are not living
> entities.

Exactly.  It's like the word "bitch".  It's a perfectly good word when
used correctly but extremely offensive when applied to women.  Maybe we
should change the name of the language because calling someone a snake
is pejorative.  I bet the PC police could find many words in the
language that are offensive when applied to people.

Where is Lenny Bruce when we need him?

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain
System Administrator, Vex.Net
http://www.Vex.Net/ IM:da...@vex.net
VoIP: sip:da...@vex.net
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[David Palao]

Hello,
My opinion is that the terms "master/slave" describe well some situations.
They could be seen by some people as offensive (although unfortunately
sometimes true, even today) when applied to persons. But it is not
offensive when applied to processes in a computer. They are not living
entities.

I would say that when talking about programming, the terms have a
perfect meaning. Otherwise, what is the correct way to use the words
master and slave? Not using them?

Best


El dom., 23 sept. 2018 a las 17:00, Albert-Jan Roskam
() escribió:
>
> *sigh*. I'm with Hettinger on this.
>
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/11/python_purges_master_and_slave_in_political_pogrom/
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Robin Becker]

On 25/09/2018 23:46, Thomas Jollans wrote:
..


I have to say I find these unspecified attacks on "SJWs" rather disturbing. Assuming for a moment that "SJW" is a viable insult 
(that's the way you appear to be using it, though I wouldn't use it myself, in that way or probably at all) -


Who is the "SJW brigade" of whom you speak?


...
It didn't take me very long to find a connection between this thread and this 
phrase

"I’m Tired of Being Tolerant"

on these issues I am with the Voltaireans.
--
Robin Becker

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Chris Angelico]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:36 PM Ian Kelly  wrote:
> So, Chris, what have *you personally* done about real slavery where it
> still happens?
>
> If, as I'm guessing, the answer is "nothing" then it seems to me that
> you don't have much of a leg to stand on to level this accusation.

Am I demanding that the terminology be changed? No? Then I don't think
the accusation applies.

> Imagine if the terminology were instead "dominant / submissive".
> Without meaning to assume too much, might the cultural context
> surrounding those terms make you feel uncomfortable when using them?
> Would you desire for something else to be used in their place? Well,
> there are plenty of people who feel exactly that way about "master /
> slave".

I wouldn't care.

> Here's the reality: the change may be difficult for some while it's
> happening, because people don't like being told that the way they're
> accustomed to doing something is harmful. But a few years from now,
> after everything has settled, nobody will be looking back at this and
> saying "oh, I wish we still used master/slave in the documentation.
> Primary/replica (or whatever else replaces it) just doesn't sound as
> good."
>
> Honestly, it's absurd that this is even a debate. Let's just make the
> change and get it over with.

And what happens when "replica" becomes pejorative? Do we change words again?

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Ian Kelly]

Chris Angelico  wrote:
>
> I was neither rude, nor personally attacking anyone.

Actually, the "SJW brigade" remark was quite rude, and a clear attack
on anybody who supports this change.

> Yes, it's an insult. It's the people who believe that they can cure
> social problems by making demands, usually about the trappings rather
> than the actual problems. For example, excising the terms "master" and
> "slave" from documentation, rather than actually doing anything about
> real slavery where it still happens.

So, Chris, what have *you personally* done about real slavery where it
still happens?

If, as I'm guessing, the answer is "nothing" then it seems to me that
you don't have much of a leg to stand on to level this accusation.

In any case, this is not about ending slavery. This is about treating
others with empathy and recognizing that words can be hurtful even
when not intended to be. Just because there are large, difficult
problems in the world does not mean that smaller problems should not
be addressed.

> What I know about them is that they (and I am assuming there are
> multiple people, because there are reports of multiple reports, if
> that makes sense) are agitating for changes to documentation without
> any real backing.

The terminology should be changed because it's offensive, full stop.
It may be normalized to many who are accustomed to it, but that
doesn't make it any less offensive.

Imagine if the terminology were instead "dominant / submissive".
Without meaning to assume too much, might the cultural context
surrounding those terms make you feel uncomfortable when using them?
Would you desire for something else to be used in their place? Well,
there are plenty of people who feel exactly that way about "master /
slave".

> I'm also talking about an anonymous person who caused *me* personal
> harm by the exact same thing. I won't go into details because the
> person wouldn't go into details about the offense I had purportedly
> done, so I'm going to leave this as a vague and meaningless thing,
> just like I was given... except that when I was given it, it came with
> a punishment.

Sorry to hear that. However, your personal pain from some other
unrelated issue has nothing to do with whether this terminology should
be changed.

> > Some unspecified possible future threat? Now this seems more likely, but
> > it's also rather silly, don't you think?
>
> The current threat is extremely likely to be continued in the future,
> yes, and it's not silly to assume that it will.

"Threat?" What is so threatening about asking people to use different
terminology?

Here's the reality: the change may be difficult for some while it's
happening, because people don't like being told that the way they're
accustomed to doing something is harmful. But a few years from now,
after everything has settled, nobody will be looking back at this and
saying "oh, I wish we still used master/slave in the documentation.
Primary/replica (or whatever else replaces it) just doesn't sound as
good."

Honestly, it's absurd that this is even a debate. Let's just make the
change and get it over with.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Ian Kelly]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 6:55 AM Robin Becker  wrote:
>
> On 23/09/2018 15:45, Albert-Jan Roskam wrote:
> > *sigh*. I'm with Hettinger on this.
> >
> > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/11/python_purges_master_and_slave_in_political_pogrom/
> >
> I am as well. Don't fix what is not broken. The semantics (in programming) 
> might not be an exact match, but people have been using
> these sorts of terms for a long time without anyone objecting.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I've been hearing complaints
about this with regard to computing in general for literally decades.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Chris Angelico]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 8:47 AM Thomas Jollans  wrote:
>
> On 25/09/18 20:57, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >
> > Is it off-topic because it's nothing to do with Python, or is it
> > actually off-topic because it makes you afraid that people won't be
> > bullied by the SJW brigade?
>
>
> I have to say I find these unspecified attacks on "SJWs" rather
> disturbing. Assuming for a moment that "SJW" is a viable insult (that's
> the way you appear to be using it, though I wouldn't use it myself, in
> that way or probably at all) -

Yes, it's an insult. It's the people who believe that they can cure
social problems by making demands, usually about the trappings rather
than the actual problems. For example, excising the terms "master" and
"slave" from documentation, rather than actually doing anything about
real slavery where it still happens. Or demanding that we talk about
"persons of colour" or whatever the latest term is, rather than
actually treating people equally.

> Who is the "SJW brigade" of whom you speak?
>
> Is it Victor? Surely not.
>
> Guido? No, right?
> e
> Victor's anonymous source? Isn't that a bit harsh, considering you know
> nothing about them?

What I know about them is that they (and I am assuming there are
multiple people, because there are reports of multiple reports, if
that makes sense) are agitating for changes to documentation without
any real backing.

I'm also talking about an anonymous person who caused *me* personal
harm by the exact same thing. I won't go into details because the
person wouldn't go into details about the offense I had purportedly
done, so I'm going to leave this as a vague and meaningless thing,
just like I was given... except that when I was given it, it came with
a punishment.

> Some unspecified possible future threat? Now this seems more likely, but
> it's also rather silly, don't you think?

The current threat is extremely likely to be continued in the future,
yes, and it's not silly to assume that it will.

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Thomas Jollans]

On 25/09/18 20:57, Chris Angelico wrote:


Is it off-topic because it's nothing to do with Python, or is it
actually off-topic because it makes you afraid that people won't be
bullied by the SJW brigade?



I have to say I find these unspecified attacks on "SJWs" rather 
disturbing. Assuming for a moment that "SJW" is a viable insult (that's 
the way you appear to be using it, though I wouldn't use it myself, in 
that way or probably at all) -


Who is the "SJW brigade" of whom you speak?

Is it Victor? Surely not.

Guido? No, right?
e
Victor's anonymous source? Isn't that a bit harsh, considering you know 
nothing about them?


Some unspecified possible future threat? Now this seems more likely, but 
it's also rather silly, don't you think?


All the best,
Thomas

PS: I'm not a great fan of it, but I think we all know that off-topic is 
in a way what this list excels at.

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Chris Angelico]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 5:56 AM Jon Ribbens  wrote:
>
> On 2018-09-25, Chris Angelico  wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 1:56 AM Jon Ribbens  
> > wrote:
> >> Those things might be on topic on python-dev - although I am sure
> >> no-one would thank you for continuing this discussion there - but
> >> this is comp.lang.python/python-list and here this is off-topic.
> >
> > Okay. What *is* on-topic for python-list?
>
> https://www.python.org/community/lists/#comp-lang-python says
>
>   "Pretty much anything Python-related is fair game for discussion"

So fair game. Also, read the rest of that sentence.

> *however* it also says
>
>   "Most discussion on comp.lang.python is about developing with
>Python, not about development of the Python interpreter itself"
>
> and python-dev is clearly the on-topic place for such discussion.

That isn't stating that it's off-topic to discuss the state of the
interpreter and/or language.

> I suggest you also read what the above link says about flamebait,

You mean this?

"Rudeness and personal attacks, even in reaction to blatant flamebait,
are strongly frowned upon."

I was neither rude, nor personally attacking anyone.

> and the Python Community Code of Conduct at
> https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

If you want to accuse me of a CoC violation, say exactly what you're
accusing me of. To my knowledge, I have not violated it by discussing
this documentation change. Be specific, and don't treat the CoC as an
arbitrary weapon to be threatened.

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2018-09-25, Chris Angelico  wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 1:56 AM Jon Ribbens  wrote:
>> Those things might be on topic on python-dev - although I am sure
>> no-one would thank you for continuing this discussion there - but
>> this is comp.lang.python/python-list and here this is off-topic.
>
> Okay. What *is* on-topic for python-list?

https://www.python.org/community/lists/#comp-lang-python says
 
  "Pretty much anything Python-related is fair game for discussion"

*however* it also says

  "Most discussion on comp.lang.python is about developing with
   Python, not about development of the Python interpreter itself"

and python-dev is clearly the on-topic place for such discussion.

I suggest you also read what the above link says about flamebait,
and the Python Community Code of Conduct at
https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Chris Angelico]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 1:56 AM Jon Ribbens  wrote:
>
> On 2018-09-25, Chris Angelico  wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:01 PM Calvin Spealman  
> > wrote:
> >> This entire conversation is inappropriate for this mailing list. Please
> >> leave this free for people who need to ask and give help with Python,
> >> regardless of which side of this argument you are on.
> >
> > Considering that the conversation is specifically about changes to the
> > code and documentation of the language and its reference
> > implementation, I don't see that it's off topic.
>
> Those things might be on topic on python-dev - although I am sure
> no-one would thank you for continuing this discussion there - but
> this is comp.lang.python/python-list and here this is off-topic.

Okay. What *is* on-topic for python-list?

"""
This mailing list is a general discussion list for the Python
programming language.
"""
(https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list)

Is it off-topic because it's nothing to do with Python, or is it
actually off-topic because it makes you afraid that people won't be
bullied by the SJW brigade?

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2018-09-25, Chris Angelico  wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:01 PM Calvin Spealman  wrote:
>> This entire conversation is inappropriate for this mailing list. Please
>> leave this free for people who need to ask and give help with Python,
>> regardless of which side of this argument you are on.
>
> Considering that the conversation is specifically about changes to the
> code and documentation of the language and its reference
> implementation, I don't see that it's off topic.

Those things might be on topic on python-dev - although I am sure
no-one would thank you for continuing this discussion there - but
this is comp.lang.python/python-list and here this is off-topic.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Chris Angelico]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:01 PM Calvin Spealman  wrote:
>
> This entire conversation is inappropriate for this mailing list. Please
> leave this free for people who need to ask and give help with Python,
> regardless of which side of this argument you are on.

Considering that the conversation is specifically about changes to the
code and documentation of the language and its reference
implementation, I don't see that it's off topic.

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Calvin Spealman]

This entire conversation is inappropriate for this mailing list. Please
leave this free for people who need to ask and give help with Python,
regardless of which side of this argument you are on.

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 4:44 AM Robin Becker  wrote:

> On 24/09/2018 21:40, Kirill Balunov wrote:
> ...
> > It seems to me that the word "black" has immunity in the next two Python
> > releases ;)  So do not worry so much!
> >
> apparently whitelist/blacklist is an issue so presumably white should also
> get immunity :)
>
> > But honestly, it's not pleasant to see how such holy things spread into
> the
> > world of OSS, and this is apparently only the beginning.
> +1
> --
> Robin Becker
>
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Robin Becker]

On 24/09/2018 21:40, Kirill Balunov wrote:
...

It seems to me that the word "black" has immunity in the next two Python
releases ;)  So do not worry so much!


apparently whitelist/blacklist is an issue so presumably white should also get 
immunity :)


But honestly, it's not pleasant to see how such holy things spread into the
world of OSS, and this is apparently only the beginning.

+1
--
Robin Becker

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Robin Becker]

On 24/09/2018 17:30, Dan Purgert wrote:

Robin Becker wrote:

[...] just thought control of the wrong sort..


Is there "thought control of the right sort"?



yes python is good python is good 

--
Robin Becker

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Gene Heskett]

On Monday 24 September 2018 16:40:22 Kirill Balunov wrote:

> пн, 24 сент. 2018 г. в 22:46, Chris Angelico :
> > The trouble is that making changes like this with a view to
> > eliminating the words "master" and "slave" from all docs and
> > comments (rather than making them to improve clarity and accuracy)
> > opens up the leverage that SJWs need. "Hey, you changed that because
> > we hate slavery - now you'd better eliminate all references to
> > 'black' because we hate racism". So clear boundaries need to be set.
>
At least forty Rogers on that. No one should get their political panties 
jammed in the crack over terminology thats likely older than they are. 
And anybody that does is nothing but a troublemaker, and probably should 
be /gently/ treated as such.

> It seems to me that the word "black" has immunity in the next two
> Python releases ;)  So do not worry so much!
>
> But honestly, it's not pleasant to see how such holy things spread
> into the world of OSS, and this is apparently only the beginning.

Yes except the beginning was years, even many decades ago, the only thing 
really changed is the names we use to describe it. Each generation seems 
to be bent on makeing a bigger stink than their parents made. It isn't 
pretty, and is best handled by turning down ones hearing aid. Sometimes 
they are smart enough to realize they are being ignored and will adjust 
their attitude.

> With kind regards,
> -gdg


-- 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Kirill Balunov]

пн, 24 сент. 2018 г. в 22:46, Chris Angelico :

>
> The trouble is that making changes like this with a view to
> eliminating the words "master" and "slave" from all docs and comments
> (rather than making them to improve clarity and accuracy) opens up the
> leverage that SJWs need. "Hey, you changed that because we hate
> slavery - now you'd better eliminate all references to 'black' because
> we hate racism". So clear boundaries need to be set.
>
>
It seems to me that the word "black" has immunity in the next two Python
releases ;)  So do not worry so much!

But honestly, it's not pleasant to see how such holy things spread into the
world of OSS, and this is apparently only the beginning.

With kind regards,
-gdg
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Chris Angelico]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 5:02 AM Thomas Jollans  wrote:
>
> On 24/09/2018 14:52, Robin Becker wrote:
> > On 23/09/2018 15:45, Albert-Jan Roskam wrote:
> >> *sigh*. I'm with Hettinger on this.
> >>
> >> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/11/python_purges_master_and_slave_in_political_pogrom/
> >>
> >>
> > I am as well. Don't fix what is not broken. The semantics (in
> > programming) might not be an exact match, but people have been using
> > these sorts of terms for a long time without anyone objecting. This sort
> > of language control is just thought control of the wrong sort.
>
> Never mind the justification and the overblown coverage in publications
> like the Register - if you look at the patches actually merged (mostly
> in https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/9101/files) they all look like
> entirely reasonable changes making docs, docstrings and comments clearer.
>
That particular PR is mostly non-controversial (there's some that are
under dispute, and dealt with elsewhere, and I'm ignoring those).
"Master process" is only one possible usage model so "parent process"
is more accurate anyway; "master and client" is mismatched; in fact,
the only one I'd even slightly disagree with is "buildslaves", since
that's a technically accurate term (they ARE slaved to the master
buildbot process), and that one has been changed upstream to
"workers", so there's no issues there.

The trouble is that making changes like this with a view to
eliminating the words "master" and "slave" from all docs and comments
(rather than making them to improve clarity and accuracy) opens up the
leverage that SJWs need. "Hey, you changed that because we hate
slavery - now you'd better eliminate all references to 'black' because
we hate racism". So clear boundaries need to be set.

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Thomas Jollans]

On 24/09/2018 14:52, Robin Becker wrote:

On 23/09/2018 15:45, Albert-Jan Roskam wrote:

*sigh*. I'm with Hettinger on this.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/11/python_purges_master_and_slave_in_political_pogrom/ 



I am as well. Don't fix what is not broken. The semantics (in 
programming) might not be an exact match, but people have been using 
these sorts of terms for a long time without anyone objecting. This sort 
of language control is just thought control of the wrong sort.


Never mind the justification and the overblown coverage in publications 
like the Register - if you look at the patches actually merged (mostly 
in https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/9101/files) they all look like 
entirely reasonable changes making docs, docstrings and comments clearer.



--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Léo El Amri via Python-list]

On 24/09/2018 18:30, Dan Purgert wrote:
> Robin Becker wrote:
>> [...] just thought control of the wrong sort..
> 
> Is there "thought control of the right sort"?

We may have to ask to Huxley
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Dan Purgert]

Robin Becker wrote:
> [...] just thought control of the wrong sort..

Is there "thought control of the right sort"?


-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Léo El Amri via Python-list]

On 24/09/2018 14:52, Robin Becker wrote:
> On 23/09/2018 15:45, Albert-Jan Roskam wrote:
>> *sigh*. I'm with Hettinger on this.
>>
>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/11/python_purges_master_and_slave_in_political_pogrom/
>>
>>
> I am as well. Don't fix what is not broken. The semantics (in
> programming) might not be an exact match, but people have been using
> these sorts of terms for a long time without anyone objecting. This sort
> of language control is just thought control of the wrong sort.

All receivable arguments have been told already, thanks to Terry,
Steven, Raymond and others, who all managed to keep their capability to
think rationally after the motive of this bug report.

Hopefully we have competent core devs.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] master/slave debate in Python

[Robin Becker]

On 23/09/2018 15:45, Albert-Jan Roskam wrote:

*sigh*. I'm with Hettinger on this.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/11/python_purges_master_and_slave_in_political_pogrom/

I am as well. Don't fix what is not broken. The semantics (in programming) might not be an exact match, but people have been using 
these sorts of terms for a long time without anyone objecting. This sort of language control is just thought control of the wrong 
sort.

--
Robin Becker

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list