You are saying the the "nature of the communication as unnecessarily antagonistic" and that I think it is necessary.
Neither of those are accurate. I do not characterize it as "antagonistic" nor necessary. > On Nov 6, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Jeffrey Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Everything you said is accurate, and I don¹t think anyone¹s debating that. > What I¹m hoping to convey is the method of communication is such that a > SIGNIFICANT number of people interpret the nature of the communication as > unnecessarily antagonistic. You seem to think it¹s necessary, but the > reaction of the community clearly says otherwise. > > A person can be 100% right and still come across as a jerk, and the CoC > instructs people to avoid doing so, because it¹s damaging to the > community. > > If you ask 100 random people who are neither Cassandra users/developers > nor ASF members about whether or not the communication from the ASF board > members is in this thread is professional, empathetic, friendly, and > likely to build a community, I suspect you¹d find a significant number > that would tell you the communication is none of those things. And THAT is > a problem, too (and it¹s NOT on the same level as mark issues, but if the > question is ³why did Datastax step back from the Apache Cassandra > project², it certainly helps explain why a company might want to do that). > > Let¹s build a community, Jim. > > > > On 11/6/16, 12:00 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> Some clarification. >> >> Basically, there had been issues w/ DataStax and the PMC for a long, >> long time. It came somewhat to a head in Aug when there was >> a PR/Email about the "Cassandra Summit" with nary a mention >> of Apache at all. None. >> >> This was after months and months in trying to get DataStax to >> honor our marks. It was this final culmination which which >> resulted in a board member saying "makes me want to jettison". >> At which Jonathan Ellis expressed confusion on what the problem >> was and asking about the context, oblivious to the concern. Someone >> else noted that both the PMC and Cassandra had been "lectured" on >> trademark violations before and said that "one would assume that >> someone learned along the way." Someone then wondered whether >> these recurring issues where due to some fault in the PMC or >> just the normal, expect churn of their being a brand. He >> further stated: "I don't see how we can make it the responsibility >> of the PMC to catch these things". It was then noted that the >> CTO of DataStax is the PMC Chair, as well as co-founder. There >> was then further discussions and "education" on mark guidelines, >> again, with Jake and Aleksey. Aleksey, at least, admitted that >> "If your only success criteria is how well trademark policing is >> performed, then sure, we all failed..." >> >> More discussion. >> >> Around this time, one board member referred to below most certainly >> did characterize the "hammer-time" phrase as "premature and >> inflammatory". Others did not. To support that position I will add >> some cut/paste quotes from another director: >> >> o Overall, there are a handful of issues here but they look to be easily >> fixable and - with a little education - preventable in the future. >> o Given the numbers and seniority of DataStax employees involved with >> Apache Cassandra it is disappointing that these errors are being made >> but people make mistakes >> o The lack of proactive policing of trademarks by the Cassandra >> PMC is what concerns me >> o Given the history, I do think the board needs to take some form of >> action. It has been suggested that the board remove all DataStax >> employees from the PMC. I agree things are heading in that direction >> but >> I don't think we are there yet. >> >> It was after that that someone mentioned that they were on 3 PMC >> and never saw any mark issues with any PMCs other than >> Cassandra (this was a not a director speaking). That is when I >> replied w/ the "I've seen such issues..." response. >> >> Some take-aways: >> >> o Mark compliance issues have been ongoing for a long, long >> time. >> o The PMC and its chair had been involved in these concerns >> for a long, long time. >> >> Once all this was done, and this particular issue resolved. The final >> few Emails on the thread close it off with: >> >> o Nobody has said commit privs should be removed. Some have discussed >> the potential of removing PMC responsibilities >> o I would like to see some positive action from the Apache Cassandra >> PMC that they are working on managing this problem. >> o We all seem to agree that the responsibility for enforcement falls >> first to the PMC, then on VP Branding, and then on the President. >> >> That is the saga of hammers. >> >>> On Nov 6, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Now that I have clarity on what can and can't be relayed to the >>> community / dev@, I'm going to reply to this email, and then I suspect >>> I'm done for today, because I'd rather watch football than reply to this >>> anymore. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Mark Struberg >>> <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> wrote: >>> Having a bit insight how the board operates (being PMC-chair for 2 >>> other TLPs) I can ensure you that the board did handle this very cleanly! >>> >>> >>> I'm going to disagree with this, in a way I hope lets everyone see >>> where things went wrong, and more importantly, the path forward to fix >>> them. >>> >>> The board correctly identified that Datastax had a majority of the PMC >>> and could exert control. >>> The board correctly identified that Datastax violated trademark >>> policies (multiple times). >>> The board correctly identified that the PMC was not adequately policing >>> Datastax (or really anyone, there were plenty of trademark issues to go >>> around). >>> >>> The board appears to have incorrectly attributed the lack of policing >>> to the fact that Datastax controlled the PMC. This is an honest mistake. >>> The real blame lies somewhere closer to a lack of understanding of >>> responsibilities, and a lack of visibility into what other parts of >>> Datastax were doing. >>> >>> It's clear I'm not alone in this conclusion - you seem to say the same >>> thing: >>> >>> >>> PS: I strongly believe that the technical people at DataStax really >>> tried to do their best but got out-maneuvered by their marketing and >>> sales people. The current step was just part of a clean separation btw a >>> company and their OSS contributions. It was legally necessary and also >>> important for the overall Cassandra community! >>> >>> >>> Unfortunately, when faced with an example of a trademark issue, there >>> were two very senior members who replied with very hostile, >>> unprofessional responses. One forwarded the example to board@ and >>> private@ with a blanket statement about wanting to "jettison every >>> single Datastax employee from the Apache Cassandra PMC". Another replied >>> with "hammer time?", and youtube links to Game of Thrones clips were >>> sent. One member of the board (properly, in my opinion) noted that their >>> reactions were premature and inflammatory. Other members of the ASF >>> noted (correctly) that in any sufficiently large organization, it takes >>> process and time to make sure marketing is aware of policies, and the >>> fact that no such process exists isn't cause to jettison the PMC, but it >>> should be something that is corrected. >>> >>> What didn't happen, though, was any admission or acknowledgement that >>> the premature and inflammatory behavior was wrong on the part of the >>> very senior, very vocal folks that said it. Instead, they've continued >>> making inflammatory comments - often because problems continue to happen >>> where they need to be involved, but the tone is such that it's very easy >>> to interpret it as hostile, which makes it very difficult to keep peace >>> in the community. >>> >>> It's often said that when the board acts, they act as a sledgehammer >>> because they have no scalpel. That's true, but the board never actually >>> swung the sledgehammer - they threatened it, but they never needed to >>> jettison every Datastax employee from the PMC, because the Datastax >>> employees actively worked in good faith to correct problems. Sometimes >>> that work was insufficient, and sometimes the PMC as a whole is less >>> responsive than we should be (because many of us are still learning). We >>> (the PMC) have been fairly open about acknowleding our shortcomings, and >>> working to correct them. >>> >>> Unfortunately, while there was acknowledgement from the board that the >>> PMC acted to correct problems (visible in the minutes, we're TRYING to >>> do better), there's never been an acknowledgement that members of the >>> board acted inappropriately - there was, at most, a single statement >>> that it was out of frustration (which appears to be a >>> half-acknowledgement that it may be out of line, but nowhere near an >>> apology for being out of line). >>> >>> I can't speak for Datastax, but if I were in their shoes, and someone >>> threatened to jettison me from the PMC for something I had no prior >>> knowledge of, and then continued to act in an aggressive manner without >>> ever acknowledging that they, too, were wrong, I would also distance >>> myself from that group - not a "take my ball and go home" mentality, but >>> a "these people act in ways that I don't understand, they seem overly >>> hostile, and I should protect myself from them". What's frustrating is >>> that it appears, in many ways, that basic empathy and professionalism on >>> the part of the ASF board members could have potentially prevented this >>> situation entirely. I suspect that members of the ASF who believe the >>> board handled this cleanly re-evaluate that assertion, and ask >>> themselves whether board members acted with empathy, friendliness, and >>> professionalism in their communication with Datastax. >>> >>> If the members of the board take that recommendation to heart, and >>> re-read threads on private@ in an objective manner, and agree with my >>> assertion that they have room for improvement as well, I encourage both >>> the board and Datastax management to reconsider their decisions made in >>> the past few months, for the sake of the community. >>> >>> Because that's why we're all here - the community. >>> >> > >
