Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #267796

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

Show all headers | View raw

[On list: copied to community@debian.org]

Hi people,

As you might have expected: this subject is drifting off-topic and becoming
a little more personal.

In answer to the first question: there's a reference to a wiki page.
It's a wiki page: it can be edited by (almost) anyone. If anyone wants
to remove the references to ifenslave and substitute others, that's
entirely fine.

As regards personal back and forth argument: can I remind _everyone_ on
the list, without exception, of the need to stay within the Debian
Code of Conduct (and the mailing list Code of Conduct).

Please try to be considerate, helpful and ,above all, constructive. It
makes a difference when it comes to dealing with anything remotely
contentious.

I think the discussion might usefully stop at this point before it
degenerates to more heat than light (as is the way of most discussions
eventually - call it an application of mailing list entropy :) ) 

With thanks for your consideration - and with every good wish, as ever,

Andy Cater
[For the Community Team]

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2024-02-25 00:00 +0100
  I think we can't disappear ifenslave documentation just yet (Was Re:  Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-25 00:10 +0100
  Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-03-15 22:20 +0100

csiph-web