James, I was indeed counting "master/slave, no change needed" as -1 for Item 0, but left them out of the summary for Item 1. Note that this is a [DISCUSS] thread, not a [VOTE] thread, so we're not officially voting yet, just gathering ideas from the community. All I was doing with the (manual) fuzzy matching was trying to summarize what people have been saying so far. Once the one week discussion period is over, we will create votable proposals and call for official votes.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Brenden Matthews <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 to what Adam wrote. > > 1. Mesos Worker [Node] > 2. Mesos Worker or Agent > 3. No > 4. Carefully > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Sam Salisbury <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Master/Minion +1 >> >> On 5 June 2015 at 15:14, CCAAT <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> "+1 master/slave, no change needed." is the same as >>> "master/slave" I.E. keep the nomenclature as it currently is >>> >>> This means keep the name 'master' and keep the name 'slave'. >>> >>> >>> Are you applying fuzzy math or kalman filters to your summations below? >>> >>> It looks to me, tallying things up, Master is kept as it is >>> and 'Slave' is kept as it is. There did not seem to be any consensus >>> on the new names if the pair names are updated. Or you can vote >>> separately on each name? On an real ballot, you enter the choices, >>> vote according to your needs, tally the results and publish them. >>> Applying a 'fuzzy filter' to what has occurred in this debate so far >>> is ridiculous. >>> >>> Why not repost the question like this or something on a more fair >>> voting preference: >>> >>> ----------------> >>> Please vote for your favourite Name-pair in Mesos, for what is currently >>> "Master-Slave". Note Master-Slave is the "no change" vote option. >>> >>> [] Master-Slave >>> [] Mesos-Slave >>> [] Mesos-Minion >>> [] Master-Minion >>> [] Master-Follower >>> [] Mesos-Follower >>> [] Master-worker >>> [] Mesos-worker >>> [] etc etc >>> >>> <----------------- >>> >>> >>> Tally the result and go from there. >>> James >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 06/05/2015 04:27 AM, Adam Bordelon wrote: >>> >>>> Wow, what a response! Allow me to attempt to summarize the sentiment so >>>> far. >>>> >>>> Let's start with the implicit question, >>>> _0. Should we rename Mesos Slave?_ >>>> +1 (Explicit approval) 12, including 7 from JIRA >>>> +0.5 (Implicit approval, suggested alternate name) 18 >>>> -0.5 (Some disapproval, wouldn't block it) 5, including 1 from JIRA >>>> -1 (Strong disapproval) 16 >>>> >>>> _1. What should we call the "Mesos Slave" node/host/machine?_ >>>> Worker: +10, -2 >>>> Agent: +6 >>>> Follower (+Leader): +4, -1 >>>> Minion: +2, -1 >>>> Drone (+Director/Queen): +2 >>>> Resource-Agent/Provider: +2 >>>> >>>> _2. What should we call the "mesos-slave" process (could be the same)?_ >>>> Pretty much everybody says that it should be the same as the node. >>>> >>>> _3. Do we need to rename Mesos Master too?_ >>>> Most say No, except when slave's new name has a preferred pairing (e.g. >>>> Follower/Leader) >>>> >>>> _4. How will we phase in the new name and phase out the old name?_ >>>> To calm any fears, we would have to go through a full deprecation cycle, >>>> introducing the new name in one release, while maintaining >>>> symlinks/aliases/duplicate-endpoints for the old name. In a subsequent >>>> release, we can remove the old name/endpoints. As we introduce the new >>>> Mesos 1.0 HTTP API, we will already be introducing breaking API changes, >>>> so this would be an ideal time to do a rename. >>>> >>>> Whether or not we decide to officially change the name in the code/APIs, >>>> some organizations are already using alternative terminologies in their >>>> presentations/scripts. We could at least try to agree upon a recommended >>>> alternative name for these purposes. >>>> >>>> _5. How do we vote on this?_ >>>> First, FYI: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>>> It seems there are two potentially separate items to vote on: >>>> >>>> Prop-A: Rename Mesos-Slave in the code/APIs >>>> Qualifies as a "code modification", so a negative (binding) vote >>>> constitutes a veto. Note that there are no -1s from the Mesos PMC yet. >>>> After this week of discussion where the community is invited to share >>>> their thoughts/opinions, we will call for an official VOTE from the PMC >>>> members. The proposal will pass if there are at least three positive >>>> votes and no negative ones. >>>> >>>> Prop-B: Recommended Alternative Name for "Slave" >>>> This can follow the common format of majority rule. We can gather >>>> recommendations during this one week discussion period, and then vote on >>>> the top 2-3 finalists. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Emilien Kenler <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 for keeping master/slave. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Panyungao (Wingoal) >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 master/slave. ____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> These are only terminologies in software architecture. They >>>> have different definitions from those of social or political >>>> view. ____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> *发件人:*zhou weitao [mailto:[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>] >>>> *发送时间:*2015年6月5日10:40 >>>> *收件人:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> *主题:*Re: [DISCUSS] Renaming Mesos Slave____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> +1 master/slave, no change needed.____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> 2015-06-05 0:10 GMT+08:00 Ankur Chauhan <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>:____ >>>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>> >>>> +1 master/slave >>>> >>>> James made some very good points and there is no technical >>>> reason for >>>> wasting time on this. >>>> >>>> On 04/06/2015 08:45, James Vanns wrote: >>>> > +1 master/slave, no change needed. >>>> > >>>> > I couldn't agree more. This is a barmy request; master/slave >>>> is a >>>> > well understood common convention (if it isn't well defined). >>>> This >>>> > is making an issue out of something that isn't. Not at least >>>> as far >>>> > as I see it - I don't have a habit of confusing >>>> software/systems >>>> > nomenclature with moral high ground. This would just be a >>>> waste of >>>> > time and not just for developers but for those adopting/who >>>> have >>>> > adopted Mesos. If it were a brand new project at the early >>>> stages >>>> > of just throwing ideas around, then fine - call master/slave >>>> > whatever you want. Gru/Minion would get my vote if that were >>>> the >>>> > case ;) >>>> > >>>> > Cheers, >>>> > >>>> > Jim >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Eren Güven <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > +1 master/slave, no change needed >>>> > >>>> > Such a change is a waste of time with no technical benefit. >>>> Also >>>> > agree with Itamar, a breaking change like this will cause >>>> upgrade >>>> > pains. >>>> > >>>> > Cheers >>>> > >>>> > On 4 June 2015 at 17:08, tommy xiao <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > +1 to James DeFelice. I don't feel the name is confuse for >>>> any >>>> > circumstance. >>>> > >>>> > 2015-06-04 22:06 GMT+08:00 James DeFelice < >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto: >>>> [email protected]>>>: >>>> > >>>> > -1 master/worker -1 master/agent -1 leader/follower >>>> > >>>> > +1 master/slave; no change needed >>>> > >>>> > There's no technical benefit **at all** to a terminology >>>> change at >>>> > this point. If people want to change the names in their client >>>> > presentations that's fine. Master/slave conveys specific >>>> meaning >>>> > that is lost otherwise. In this context of this project (and >>>> > elsewhere in Engineering-related fields) the terms are >>>> technical >>>> > jargon and have no social implications within such context. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Till Toenshoff < >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> 1. Mesos Worker [node/host/machine] 2. Mesos Worker >>>> [process] 3. >>>> >> No, master/worker seems to address the issue with less >>>> changes. >>>> >> 4. Begin using the new name ASAP, add a disambiguation to the >>>> >> docs, and change old references over time. Fixing the >>>> "official" >>>> >> name, even before changes are in place, would be a good first >>>> >> step. >>>> > >>>> > +1 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- James DeFelice585.241.9488 <tel:585.241.9488> <tel: >>>> 585.241.9488 >>>> <tel:585.241.9488>> (voice) >>>> >650.649.6071 <tel:650.649.6071> <tel:650.649.6071 >>>> <tel:650.649.6071>> (fax) >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com < >>>> http://gmail.com> >>>> > <http://gmail.com> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- -- Senior Code Pig Industrial Light & Magic >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> >>>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVcHhwAAoJEOSJAMhvLp3L8E4H/2ug5bAs5S7sZrGVZyp4vdki >>>> tEd67eQDu1gXCV1fC6VqStnlGG9UHG95/RaCkiLLEmtbYBIY4f+6Urbwoo0P4Qyh >>>> sU4Z0y3cdXkibH1DTIwT3tRXa/yp9Msx+KAI6NqXvfOtnLVXXtT4nKD9BCQ/+u98 >>>> afvICT1z25lBiYjBaZaVlrJRFtZkmRzVhwWiSnmtfyBfyvwbg8tEGoR1mqf3h7D5 >>>> ZpxTUvjLc1sF0NNLFTt30ReJfynOGY0tNfozi9Ubf5Hs7/3xfuHSBDVDm1+2EP4/ >>>> cHEMs2S0+54JsgSTGBGq4PGL/nKQ8vuwjzVihgQXpA3CU8QBikuvdRc/UBwDaR0= >>>> =niNh >>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> <http://www.wizcorp.jp/> Emilien Kenler >>>> Server Engineer | Wizcorp Inc. <http://www.wizcorp.jp/> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> TECH . GAMING . OPEN-SOURCE WIZARDS >>>> + 81 (0)3-4550-1448|Website <http://www.wizcorp.jp/>|Twitter >>>> <https://twitter.com/Wizcorp>|Facebook >>>> <http://www.facebook.com/Wizcorp>|LinkedIn >>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/wizcorp> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
