Re: Review of Cassandra actions

[Michael Kjellman]

Thanks Jeff for your thoughtful comments. +100

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 5, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> 
> I hope the other 7 members of the board take note of this response,
> and other similar reactions on dev@ today.
> 
> When Datastax violated trademark, they acknowledged it and worked to
> correct it. To their credit, they tried to do the right thing.
> When the PMC failed to enforce problems, we acknowledged it and worked
> to correct it. We aren't perfect, but we're trying.
> 
> When a few members the board openly violate the code of conduct, being
> condescending and disrespectful under the auspices of "enforcing the
> rules" and "protecting the community", they're breaking the rules,
> damaging the community, and nobody seems willing to acknowledge it or
> work to correct it. It's not isolated, I'll link examples if it's
> useful.
> 
> In a time when we're all trying to do the right thing to protect the
> project and the community, it's unfortunate that high ranking, long
> time members within the ASF actively work to undermine trust and
> community while flaunting the code of conduct, which requires
> friendliness, empathy, and professionalism, and the rest of the board
> is silent on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 5, 2016, at 4:08 PM, Dave Brosius  wrote:
>> 
>> I take this response (a second time) as a pompous way to trivialize the 
>> responses of others as to the point of their points being meaningless to 
>> you. So either explain what this means, or accept the fact that you are as 
>> Chris is exactly what people are claiming you to be. Abnoxious bullies more 
>> interested in throwing your weight around and causing havoc, destroying a 
>> community, rather than actually being motivated by improving the ASF.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 11/05/2016 06:16 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> How about a nice game of chess?
>>> 
 On Nov 5, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko  wrote:
 
 I’m sorry, but this statement is so at odds with common sense that I have 
 to call it out.
 
 Of course your position grants your voice extra power. A lot of extra 
 power,
 like it or not (I have a feeling you quite like it, though).
 
 In an ideal world, that power would entail corresponding duties:
 care and consideration in your actions at least.
 Instead, you are being hotheaded, impulsive, antagonising, and immature.
 
 In what possible universe dropping that hammer threat from the ’20% off” 
 email thread,
 then following up with a Game of Thrones youtube clip is alright?
 
 That kind of behaviour is inappropriate for a board member. Frankly, it 
 wouldn’t be
 appropriate for a greeter at Walmart. If you don’t see this, we do indeed 
 have bigger
 problems.
 
 --
 AY
 
 On 5 November 2016 at 14:57:13, Jim Jagielski (j...@jagunet.com) wrote:
 
>> But I love the ability of VP's and Board to simply pretend their 
>> positions carried no weight.
>> 
> I would submit that whatever "weight" someone's position may
> carry, it is due to *who* they are, and not *what* they are.
> 
> If we have people here in the ASF or in PMCs which really think
> that titles manner in discussions like this, when one is NOT
> speaking ex cathedra, then we have bigger problems. :)
>>> 
>> 

Re: Moderation

[Jonathan Haddad]

I agree with Paul. Same boat, not a PMC / Datastax, just someone that cares
a lot about this community.
On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 3:04 PM paul cannon  wrote:

> I'm not a stakeholder here- I don't know Russell, I don't work for
> Datastax, and I'm not a member of the ASF.
>
> For what little it's probably worth since I haven't "been elected to have a
> binding voice within the project", Russell's is exactly how I read the
> message from Chris Mattmann. Whether or not it was intended to be so
> aggressive and dismissive and patronizing, I almost can't even believe
> something that *might* be taken this way is tolerated in a board member's
> *public* communications.
>
> In the end, I *can* believe it, though, as it reinforces my perception of
> the Foundation in general. :(
>
> p
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Russell Bradberry 
> wrote:
>
> > For the record, I never said anyone was attempting to make me “look bad”.
> > I simply stated that his method of argument was to discredit me.  Below I
> > will break down his response, as I see it, and as others who have
> messaged
> > me off list see it as well:
> >
> > “… You see I’ve been around since 2004 and elected by the membership to
> > the Board for the last three years based on merit …”
> >
> > Here he is showing his superiority by way of tenure, or merit.
> >
> > “You see I actually understand…”
> >
> > The use of the term “actually” in this sense is to provide an attack
> > against me in an effort to prove that I do not understand.
> >
> > “…unfortunately you do not have a voice …”
> >
> > Again, this is a blatant attempt to discredit me and provide proof that
> my
> > word is of no worth because I am not on the PMC, nor a committer.
> >
> > “You won’t have a vote in the next Apache Board election.”
> >
> > Again
> >
> > “You won’t have a vote in the next Members election.”
> >
> > Again
> >
> > “why haven’t you been elected to have a binding voice within the project?
> > Please ask yourself that”
> >
> > This is either an attempt to discredit me, in that I have not done enough
> > to be elected, or an attempt to state the PMC hasn’t been doing their job
> > in recognizing my efforts.
> >
> > “please ask yourself – what is a “Cassandra MVP” compared to a member of
> > the ASF which is home to the project””
> >
> > This is not only insinuating that MVP is less than being a member of the
> > ASF, and because I was given the MVP title, that somehow I am less than
> as
> > well. (for the record, I have not asked for the MVP title, it was
> awarded,
> > and I do not think that it should have any effect on the project from an
> > Apache standpoint. Quite simply put, it is just another bullet point on a
> > resume)
> >
> > “I’ve been privy and voted on granting membership to within the
> foundation
> > since 2011”
> >
> > More attempts to discredit me by showing tenure.
> >
> > Literally, the first portion of the response was a campaign to discredit
> > me in order to demonstrate his merit.  The rest of the email goes to
> defend
> > a point that I did not make.
> >
> > Again, I will assert that the complaints the board has are valid.
> > Datastax may have overstepped bounds and, as a result, put the project
> and
> > ASF at risk.  I am not an authority on the subject and have not been
> privy
> > to the private messages between the board, PMC, and Datastax.  What I
> will
> > say, is that the tone, vitriol, ad-hominem responses and other
> > unprofessional conduct has caused a rift in this community.  Most of this
> > is coming directly from the board, specifically Chris.  Furthermore, as
> > Aleksey has pointed out, this occurs in the private lists as well.  This
> is
> > a form of toxic-leadership and is proven to not only be ineffective, but
> > also be directly harmful.  These issues can, and should, be resolved
> > amicably.
> >
> > Professionalism and Respect, if aren’t, should be of the core tenets of
> > any foundation, especially one of the caliber of Apache.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/5/16, 9:38 AM, "Mark Struberg"  wrote:
> >
> > Russel, I don't read that out of Chris' answer.
> > He just tried to show how community development might look like if
> > done a bit more openly.
> >
> > Do you mind going back to Chris' original reply and re-read it again?
> > I've not interpreted it as anyone trying to make you look bad. Au
> > contraire!
> >
> >
> > txs and LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Saturday, 5 November 2016, 13:56, Russell Bradberry <
> > rbradbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It seems that your tactic of argument is to discredit me at every
> > level in order
> > > to show your superiority of sorts.  Let me set this straight, I am
> > not
> > > attempting to say that I am an authority on ASF or that I know how
> > things should
> > > be run.  I also was not attempting to vilify you in front of the
> > board or vilify
> >   

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

[Jeff Jirsa]

I hope the other 7 members of the board take note of this response,
and other similar reactions on dev@ today.

When Datastax violated trademark, they acknowledged it and worked to
correct it. To their credit, they tried to do the right thing.
When the PMC failed to enforce problems, we acknowledged it and worked
to correct it. We aren't perfect, but we're trying.

When a few members the board openly violate the code of conduct, being
condescending and disrespectful under the auspices of "enforcing the
rules" and "protecting the community", they're breaking the rules,
damaging the community, and nobody seems willing to acknowledge it or
work to correct it. It's not isolated, I'll link examples if it's
useful.

In a time when we're all trying to do the right thing to protect the
project and the community, it's unfortunate that high ranking, long
time members within the ASF actively work to undermine trust and
community while flaunting the code of conduct, which requires
friendliness, empathy, and professionalism, and the rest of the board
is silent on the matter.




> On Nov 5, 2016, at 4:08 PM, Dave Brosius  wrote:
>
> I take this response (a second time) as a pompous way to trivialize the 
> responses of others as to the point of their points being meaningless to you. 
> So either explain what this means, or accept the fact that you are as Chris 
> is exactly what people are claiming you to be. Abnoxious bullies more 
> interested in throwing your weight around and causing havoc, destroying a 
> community, rather than actually being motivated by improving the ASF.
>
>
>> On 11/05/2016 06:16 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> How about a nice game of chess?
>>
>>> On Nov 5, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko  wrote:
>>>
>>> I’m sorry, but this statement is so at odds with common sense that I have 
>>> to call it out.
>>>
>>> Of course your position grants your voice extra power. A lot of extra power,
>>> like it or not (I have a feeling you quite like it, though).
>>>
>>> In an ideal world, that power would entail corresponding duties:
>>> care and consideration in your actions at least.
>>> Instead, you are being hotheaded, impulsive, antagonising, and immature.
>>>
>>> In what possible universe dropping that hammer threat from the ’20% off” 
>>> email thread,
>>> then following up with a Game of Thrones youtube clip is alright?
>>>
>>> That kind of behaviour is inappropriate for a board member. Frankly, it 
>>> wouldn’t be
>>> appropriate for a greeter at Walmart. If you don’t see this, we do indeed 
>>> have bigger
>>> problems.
>>>
>>> --
>>> AY
>>>
>>> On 5 November 2016 at 14:57:13, Jim Jagielski (j...@jagunet.com) wrote:
>>>
>  But I love the ability of VP's and Board to simply pretend their 
> positions carried no weight.
>
 I would submit that whatever "weight" someone's position may
 carry, it is due to *who* they are, and not *what* they are.

 If we have people here in the ASF or in PMCs which really think
 that titles manner in discussions like this, when one is NOT
 speaking ex cathedra, then we have bigger problems. :)
>>
>

Re: Moderation

[paul cannon]

I'm not a stakeholder here- I don't know Russell, I don't work for
Datastax, and I'm not a member of the ASF.

For what little it's probably worth since I haven't "been elected to have a
binding voice within the project", Russell's is exactly how I read the
message from Chris Mattmann. Whether or not it was intended to be so
aggressive and dismissive and patronizing, I almost can't even believe
something that *might* be taken this way is tolerated in a board member's
*public* communications.

In the end, I *can* believe it, though, as it reinforces my perception of
the Foundation in general. :(

p


On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Russell Bradberry 
wrote:

> For the record, I never said anyone was attempting to make me “look bad”.
> I simply stated that his method of argument was to discredit me.  Below I
> will break down his response, as I see it, and as others who have messaged
> me off list see it as well:
>
> “… You see I’ve been around since 2004 and elected by the membership to
> the Board for the last three years based on merit …”
>
> Here he is showing his superiority by way of tenure, or merit.
>
> “You see I actually understand…”
>
> The use of the term “actually” in this sense is to provide an attack
> against me in an effort to prove that I do not understand.
>
> “…unfortunately you do not have a voice …”
>
> Again, this is a blatant attempt to discredit me and provide proof that my
> word is of no worth because I am not on the PMC, nor a committer.
>
> “You won’t have a vote in the next Apache Board election.”
>
> Again
>
> “You won’t have a vote in the next Members election.”
>
> Again
>
> “why haven’t you been elected to have a binding voice within the project?
> Please ask yourself that”
>
> This is either an attempt to discredit me, in that I have not done enough
> to be elected, or an attempt to state the PMC hasn’t been doing their job
> in recognizing my efforts.
>
> “please ask yourself – what is a “Cassandra MVP” compared to a member of
> the ASF which is home to the project””
>
> This is not only insinuating that MVP is less than being a member of the
> ASF, and because I was given the MVP title, that somehow I am less than as
> well. (for the record, I have not asked for the MVP title, it was awarded,
> and I do not think that it should have any effect on the project from an
> Apache standpoint. Quite simply put, it is just another bullet point on a
> resume)
>
> “I’ve been privy and voted on granting membership to within the foundation
> since 2011”
>
> More attempts to discredit me by showing tenure.
>
> Literally, the first portion of the response was a campaign to discredit
> me in order to demonstrate his merit.  The rest of the email goes to defend
> a point that I did not make.
>
> Again, I will assert that the complaints the board has are valid.
> Datastax may have overstepped bounds and, as a result, put the project and
> ASF at risk.  I am not an authority on the subject and have not been privy
> to the private messages between the board, PMC, and Datastax.  What I will
> say, is that the tone, vitriol, ad-hominem responses and other
> unprofessional conduct has caused a rift in this community.  Most of this
> is coming directly from the board, specifically Chris.  Furthermore, as
> Aleksey has pointed out, this occurs in the private lists as well.  This is
> a form of toxic-leadership and is proven to not only be ineffective, but
> also be directly harmful.  These issues can, and should, be resolved
> amicably.
>
> Professionalism and Respect, if aren’t, should be of the core tenets of
> any foundation, especially one of the caliber of Apache.
>
>
>
> On 11/5/16, 9:38 AM, "Mark Struberg"  wrote:
>
> Russel, I don't read that out of Chris' answer.
> He just tried to show how community development might look like if
> done a bit more openly.
>
> Do you mind going back to Chris' original reply and re-read it again?
> I've not interpreted it as anyone trying to make you look bad. Au
> contraire!
>
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, 5 November 2016, 13:56, Russell Bradberry <
> rbradbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It seems that your tactic of argument is to discredit me at every
> level in order
> > to show your superiority of sorts.  Let me set this straight, I am
> not
> > attempting to say that I am an authority on ASF or that I know how
> things should
> > be run.  I also was not attempting to vilify you in front of the
> board or vilify
> > you in any way.  My complaint is that your rhetoric is
> unprofessional; and as a
> > representative of the board the language you use is, plainly,
> casting a bad
> > light on the ASF.
> >
> > I understand all of your concerns and was not attempting to minimize
> them in any
> > way; they are legitimate concerns.  The way you are handling them is
> what I am
> > concerned with and the tone you 

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

[Dave Brosius]

I take this response (a second time) as a pompous way to trivialize the 
responses of others as to the point of their points being meaningless to 
you. So either explain what this means, or accept the fact that you are 
as Chris is exactly what people are claiming you to be. Abnoxious 
bullies more interested in throwing your weight around and causing 
havoc, destroying a community, rather than actually being motivated by 
improving the ASF.



On 11/05/2016 06:16 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

How about a nice game of chess?


On Nov 5, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko  wrote:

I’m sorry, but this statement is so at odds with common sense that I have to 
call it out.

Of course your position grants your voice extra power. A lot of extra power,
like it or not (I have a feeling you quite like it, though).

In an ideal world, that power would entail corresponding duties:
care and consideration in your actions at least.
Instead, you are being hotheaded, impulsive, antagonising, and immature.

In what possible universe dropping that hammer threat from the ’20% off” email 
thread,
then following up with a Game of Thrones youtube clip is alright?

That kind of behaviour is inappropriate for a board member. Frankly, it 
wouldn’t be
appropriate for a greeter at Walmart. If you don’t see this, we do indeed have 
bigger
problems.

--
AY

On 5 November 2016 at 14:57:13, Jim Jagielski (j...@jagunet.com) wrote:

  
But I love the ability of VP's and Board to simply pretend their positions carried no weight.
  

I would submit that whatever "weight" someone's position may
carry, it is due to *who* they are, and not *what* they are.

If we have people here in the ASF or in PMCs which really think
that titles manner in discussions like this, when one is NOT
speaking ex cathedra, then we have bigger problems. :)

Re: Moderation

[Russell Bradberry]

For the record, I never said anyone was attempting to make me “look bad”.  I 
simply stated that his method of argument was to discredit me.  Below I will 
break down his response, as I see it, and as others who have messaged me off 
list see it as well:

“… You see I’ve been around since 2004 and elected by the membership to the 
Board for the last three years based on merit …”

Here he is showing his superiority by way of tenure, or merit.

“You see I actually understand…”

The use of the term “actually” in this sense is to provide an attack against me 
in an effort to prove that I do not understand.

“…unfortunately you do not have a voice …”

Again, this is a blatant attempt to discredit me and provide proof that my word 
is of no worth because I am not on the PMC, nor a committer.

“You won’t have a vote in the next Apache Board election.”

Again

“You won’t have a vote in the next Members election.”

Again

“why haven’t you been elected to have a binding voice within the project? 
Please ask yourself that”

This is either an attempt to discredit me, in that I have not done enough to be 
elected, or an attempt to state the PMC hasn’t been doing their job in 
recognizing my efforts.

“please ask yourself – what is a “Cassandra MVP” compared to a member of the 
ASF which is home to the project””

This is not only insinuating that MVP is less than being a member of the ASF, 
and because I was given the MVP title, that somehow I am less than as well. 
(for the record, I have not asked for the MVP title, it was awarded, and I do 
not think that it should have any effect on the project from an Apache 
standpoint. Quite simply put, it is just another bullet point on a resume)

“I’ve been privy and voted on granting membership to within the foundation 
since 2011”

More attempts to discredit me by showing tenure.

Literally, the first portion of the response was a campaign to discredit me in 
order to demonstrate his merit.  The rest of the email goes to defend a point 
that I did not make.  

Again, I will assert that the complaints the board has are valid.  Datastax may 
have overstepped bounds and, as a result, put the project and ASF at risk.  I 
am not an authority on the subject and have not been privy to the private 
messages between the board, PMC, and Datastax.  What I will say, is that the 
tone, vitriol, ad-hominem responses and other unprofessional conduct has caused 
a rift in this community.  Most of this is coming directly from the board, 
specifically Chris.  Furthermore, as Aleksey has pointed out, this occurs in 
the private lists as well.  This is a form of toxic-leadership and is proven to 
not only be ineffective, but also be directly harmful.  These issues can, and 
should, be resolved amicably. 

Professionalism and Respect, if aren’t, should be of the core tenets of any 
foundation, especially one of the caliber of Apache.



On 11/5/16, 9:38 AM, "Mark Struberg"  wrote:

Russel, I don't read that out of Chris' answer.
He just tried to show how community development might look like if done a 
bit more openly.

Do you mind going back to Chris' original reply and re-read it again?
I've not interpreted it as anyone trying to make you look bad. Au contraire!


txs and LieGrue,
strub





> On Saturday, 5 November 2016, 13:56, Russell Bradberry 
 wrote:
> > It seems that your tactic of argument is to discredit me at every level 
in order 
> to show your superiority of sorts.  Let me set this straight, I am not 
> attempting to say that I am an authority on ASF or that I know how things 
should 
> be run.  I also was not attempting to vilify you in front of the board or 
vilify 
> you in any way.  My complaint is that your rhetoric is unprofessional; 
and as a 
> representative of the board the language you use is, plainly, casting a 
bad 
> light on the ASF.
> 
> I understand all of your concerns and was not attempting to minimize them 
in any 
> way; they are legitimate concerns.  The way you are handling them is what 
I am 
> concerned with and the tone you take is what I believe is helping divide 
the 
> community.  Being the “villain” as you say is what is the problem.  If 
you cast 
> yourself as the villain as a representative of the foundation you are 
then 
> making the foundation look bad.
> 
> Lastly, I may not have a vote, but I do have a voice.  Everyone in the 
community 
> does and can be heard, if not then it isn’t much of a community at all. I 
> wouldn’t have you voted off the board nor do I want you to be voted off 
the 
> board, I have not enough information to make a sound decision in that 
regard.  
> 
> All I ask if for some common professionalism and courtesy, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/4/16, 4:46 PM, "Chris Mattmann"  
> 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Łukasz Dywicki]

Dear Jeff and discussion participants,
Plase find my replies in line.

> From Jeff Jirsa  w dniu 5 lis 2016, o godz. 17:37:
> The thesis of your pasted gist is that you tried to contribute and were
> pushed away. You hypothesize that it's done with lack of will to pull in
> other people's work, and that this blocks outside contributors. I firmly
> disagree with your conclusion.
> 
> Your gist details a proposed transition from ant to maven on a 6 or 7 year
> old project. You make a (relatively weak) case for it on technical merit.
I take build and project structuring quite seriously. From these two things 
it’s clear if its easy to get started with it or not. If everything sits in one 
place there is lots of bidirectional links which makes understanding of how 
whole thing works harder. More over it also complicates patches cause its quite 
easy to introduce side effects. I know internally you follow some logic or 
pattern but if its not visible in first place, is not described or its just 
communicated in conversation then it requires spending hours of newcomers to 
get it over and do even a basic thing. Build and granuality of modules is 
essential to every project. I been working with many projects which had 
troubles with proper modularization, one of these was elasticsearch few years 
back. Thing is that Elastic, without even having whole apache way, invested 
their money and time in making their project something more than just one jar, 
Cassandra despite of higher age did not.

> You are met with a combination of silence and resistance - a project with
> years of inertia, already out of the incubator, with build systems already
> in place, with history and convention on the side of ant has little desire
> to change from ant to maven, especially at the request of a person without
> a history of contributions to the project. If you were to submit a change
> to maven and disappear, who will maintain that change? Is there reason to
> believe you're willing to maintain it long term? Have you ever contributed
> non-invasive changes before, is there an evidence that this is the right
> thing for the project?
I am working with cassandra on daily basis. I was (actually I still am) 
repackaging it to deploy and had lots of troubles because of dependencies and 
simple a fact that thrift interface separation was not good enough or you 
produced broken artifact. I was, actually I’m still, maintaining this at work. 
This was primary reason I invested some of my spare time to make my daily work 
easier so I could later on use some of my paid time to help you with that. 
Questioning my presence for support is quite unfair because this shall be very 
first question back then, not now. In fact I am still subscribed to this 
mailing list even if my patch attempt have failed.

> That is - the change you proposed is invasive, not
> strictly necessary (wasn't a bug fix), and is being proposed by a newcomer,
> which isn't a problem, but it means your proposal needs significant
> supporting evidence to justify the disruption it would cause. This isn't
> the same as proposing an improvement to the database, it's changing the
> workflow of dozens of people and LOTS and LOTS of existing systems (CI and
> release workflows, for example) - you need to be able to defend and justify
> that change, as it likely causes ALL developers to change ALL of their
> workflows. And quite frankly, you didn’t.
Every build change is invasive, in some cases even bringing some dependency 
might be a small bomb. Some impacts are bigger, some are smaller, but at the 
end of the day I was not bringing a own tool which I pulled out of the hat 
(such for example buck). I proposed to use some standard tool which serves 
millions of projects, both OSS and commercial, around globe. Even other 
projects which datastax people are already involved in, which is also used by 
external dependencies pulled in by cassandra. Yes, it would change daily 
workflows, so release could be done in two simple commands and people who build 
for example java driver could build cassandra in the same way without copyting 
over binary artifacts to source directory. I won’t lie that it would be like 
turning on a new switch, because build changes would affect everyone who 
touches sources. There are no free benefits and to get some of above you would 
need to pay off something. You didn’t want to do it and that’s fine. That was 
your call. I still believe you was wrong, but as some external user I don’t 
know a whole story and my opinion may not be legitimate.

> You then *materially mischaracterize* the interaction "Whole discantus
> last for few mode days but at the end it was shut down by datastax
> employee", and you selectively quote part of the exchange, but leave out
> his closing sentence "*I don't want to give you the impression I am either
> a gatekeeper or shooting down your proposal. I'm just attempting to explain
> my perception **of the view 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Aleksey Yeschenko]

I’d say they are interwoven with inappropriate passages that should have never 
been typed,
and *all of them* came from ASF board members.

I feel like it would be in the interest of Apache Cassandra, and the greater 
Apache community,
to expose the way the board treats its volunteer PMC and committers - with no 
class, gratitude,
or any resemblance of professionalism one would normally expect from persons in 
such a role.

I’m one of the participants of those threads, and I have no objections to them 
being published as is.
Maybe doing so would make certain people think about what they type before they 
hit ‘Send’,
and show some respect to Apache volunteers in the future?

-- 
AY

On 5 November 2016 at 18:47:44, Marvin Humphrey (mar...@rectangular.com) wrote:

The recent conversations which took place on private lists regarding the 
Cassandra community are interwoven with passages which ought to stay private. 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Edward Capriolo]

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:

> My first reaction to seeing this come in was to laugh - not because it's
> funny, but because the only other thing I could think to do was cry. You've
> misinterpreted or misunderstood almost everything in this post, and instead
> of reflecting on your side of the interaction, you've attributed the
> outcome to selfishness on the opposite side.
>
> First, let's set aside tinkerpop. This is a Cassandra list, let's focus on
> Cassandra. Different committers, different PMCs, different project.
>
> The thesis of your pasted gist is that you tried to contribute and were
> pushed away. You hypothesize that it's done with lack of will to pull in
> other people's work, and that this blocks outside contributors. I firmly
> disagree with your conclusion.
>
> Your gist details a proposed transition from ant to maven on a 6 or 7 year
> old project. You make a (relatively weak) case for it on technical merit.
> You are met with a combination of silence and resistance - a project with
> years of inertia, already out of the incubator, with build systems already
> in place, with history and convention on the side of ant has little desire
> to change from ant to maven, especially at the request of a person without
> a history of contributions to the project. If you were to submit a change
> to maven and disappear, who will maintain that change? Is there reason to
> believe you're willing to maintain it long term? Have you ever contributed
> non-invasive changes before, is there an evidence that this is the right
> thing for the project? That is - the change you proposed is invasive, not
> strictly necessary (wasn't a bug fix), and is being proposed by a newcomer,
> which isn't a problem, but it means your proposal needs significant
> supporting evidence to justify the disruption it would cause. This isn't
> the same as proposing an improvement to the database, it's changing the
> workflow of dozens of people and LOTS and LOTS of existing systems (CI and
> release workflows, for example) - you need to be able to defend and justify
> that change, as it likely causes ALL developers to change ALL of their
> workflows. And quite frankly, you didn't.
>
> You then *materially mischaracterize* the interaction "Whole discussion
> last for few mode days but at the end it was shut down by datastax
> employee", and you selectively quote part of the exchange, but leave out
> his closing sentence "*I don't want to give you the impression I am either
> a gatekeeper or shooting down your proposal. I'm just attempting to explain
> my perception **of the view of the existing contributors*."
>
> You indicate that the decisions made by the PMC force other companies to
> run forks (citing Stratio as an example). Here, again, history doesn't just
> find this unsupportable, but patently untrue. Time and time again the PMC
> made the decision to include code specifically so that Stratio wouldn't
> need to fork.
>
> Here's an example where code was backported to a stable release against
> typical convention (new features don't go into stable releases)
> specifically to enable Stratio not to fork:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8717
> Here's an example where Datastax committers not only reached out to Stratio
> to ensure that their software would be compatible with the upcoming major
> engine rewrite, but actually did the engineering work to ensure
> compatibility FOR them: https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9459
> (note that it was designed by Datastax employed committers FOR Stratio, and
> that the patch came from Datastax  committers).
>
> You indicate that discontinuation of thrift was seen by outsiders as
> marketing driven. The discontinuation of thrift is technical in nature -
> it's implementation has a ton of edge cases, it's existence introduces
> risk. It's more code to maintain, and it's now less performant than the
> native CQL. The preference for CQL over thrift evolved over time, it's
> easier for newcomers, it's easier for most people to reason about, and the
> 3.0 engine (ticket 8099) optimized storage for CQL, moving thrift to second
> class status. This isn't marketing, this is tech. The communication may
> have been poor (though to be fair, it was discussed in detail on various
> JIRA tickets, which is sent to various mailing lists, so it "happened" in
> the Apache sense).
>
> You then assert that communication with former employees indicates that
> collaboration with the cassandra team was hard. Easy/Hard is subjective,
> but what I suggest is that collaboration with the former-apache-cassandra
> team at Datastax requires folks to conform to the open source workflow -
> Datastax teams didn't get to short-cut the process and push features into
> the DB, they had to open tickets and get code reviewed just like everyone
> else. That's how things are SUPPOSED to work. Is it more difficult than
> sending a patch and having 

Re: Broader community involvement in 4.0 (WAS Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0)

[Michael Shuler]

On 11/04/2016 06:43 PM, Jeff Beck wrote:
> I run the local Cassandra User Group and I would love to help get the
> community more involved.  I would propose holding a night to add patches to
> Cassandra some will be simple things like making sure some asserts have
> proper messages with them etc, but some may be slightly larger. The goal
> being to just get people used to the process, to help make this a success
> it would be great if we could have support on getting the patches we submit
> at least looked at briefly in 1 month. That timeframe allows us to talk
> about it at the next meetup and show people their contributions even small
> ones are valued.

This is a great idea and I have a suggestion that would benefit the
project as a whole, as well as help new people get used to the
development process:

  Document the process.

Recently, the project included documentation in the source tree under
`doc/`, which is directly presented at
https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/latest/

The red bar at the top has a link to contributions, there are docs about
getting started with development, reviewing patches, and testing. If
those docs need updating for better readability, missing steps, hints
for new contributors, etc. I think this could be one of the most
valuable contributions a user group could make, as well as provide some
initial experience in the development process itself.

> Before we did this night I would probably dig through some tickets and get
> an example list going and any feedback notes on making the process easier
> would be great.

Some more ideas:
The user group members could get themselves set up in JIRA in order to
review one another's patches, get a feel for testing patches, go through
the motions of *how* to contribute improvements, and again, get
documentation change patches up in JIRA, so everyone benefits from your
experiences, as the group works through the process.

> Generally if there is anything you need from the meetups ask I know I will
> do my best to get the local group to support things.

Thanks for the interest!

-- 
Kind regards,
Michael

Re: Broader community involvement in 4.0 (WAS Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0)

[Edward Capriolo]

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith 
wrote:

> Hi Ed,
>
> I would like to try and clear up what I perceive to be some
> misunderstandings.
>
> Aleksey is relating that for *complex* tickets there are desperately few
> people with the expertise necessary to review them.  In some cases it can
> amount to several weeks' work, possibly requiring multiple people, which is
> a huge investment.  EPaxos is an example where its complexity likely needs
> multiple highly qualified reviewers.
>
> Simpler tickets on the other hand languish due to poor incentives - they
> aren't sexy for volunteers, and aren't important for the corporately
> sponsored contributors, who also have finite resources.  Nobody *wants* to
> do them.
>
> This does contribute to an emergent lack of diversity in the pool of
> contributors, but it doesn't discount Aleksey's point.  We need to find a
> way forward that handles both of these concerns.
>
> Sponsored contributors have invested time into efforts to expand the
> committer pool before, though they have universally failed.  Efforts like
> the "low hanging fruit squad" seem like a good idea that might payoff, with
> the only risk being the cloud hanging over the project right now.  I think
> constructive engagement with potential sponsors is probably the way
> forward.
>
> (As an aside, the policy on test coverage was historically very poor
> indeed, but is I believe much stronger today - try not to judge current
> behaviours on those of the past)
>
>
> On 5 November 2016 at 00:05, Edward Capriolo 
> wrote:
>
> > "I’m sure users running Cassandra in production would prefer actual
> proper
> > reviews to non-review +1s."
> >
> > Again, you are implying that only you can do a proper job.
> >
> > Lets be specific here: You and I are working on this one:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10825
> >
> > Now, Ariel reported there was no/low code coverage. I went looking a the
> > code and found a problem.
> >
> > If someone were to merge this: I would have more incentive to look for
> > other things, then I might find more bugs and improvements. If this
> process
> > keeps going, I would naturally get exposed to more of the code. Finally
> in
> > maybe (I don't know in 10 or 20 years) I could become one of these
> > specialists.
> >
> > Lets peal this situation apart:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10825
> >
> > "If you grep test/src and cassandra-dtest you will find that the string
> > OverloadedException doesn't appear anywhere."
> >
> > Now let me flip this situation around:
> >
> > "I'm sure the users running Cassandra in production would prefer proper
> > coding practice like writing unit and integration test to rubber stamp
> > merges"
> >
> > When the shoe is on the other foot it does not feel so nice.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dunno. A sneaky correctness or data corruption bug. A performance
> > > regression. Or something that can take a node/cluster down.
> > >
> > > Of course no process is bullet-proof. The purpose of review is to
> > minimise
> > > the odds of such a thing happening.
> > >
> > > I’m sure users running Cassandra in production would prefer actual
> proper
> > > reviews to non-review +1s.
> > >
> > > --
> > > AY
> > >
> > > On 4 November 2016 at 23:03:23, Edward Capriolo (edlinuxg...@gmail.com
> )
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I feel that is really standing up on a soap box. What would be the
> worst
> > > thing that happens here
> >
>

Benedict,

Well said. I think we both see a similar way forward.

"Sponsored contributors have invested time into efforts to expand the
committer pool before, though they have universally failed."

Lets talk about this. I am following a number of tickets. Take for example
this one.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12649

September 19th: User submits a patch along with a clear rational. (It is
right in the description of the ticket):

October 19th: (me) +1 (non binding) users with unpredictable batch sizes
tend to also have gc problems and this would aid in insight.

October 28th: Someone else: Would be nice to see this committed. We have
seen a lot of users mistakenly batch against multiple partitions.

Note: 3 people have agreed they see this as useful.

November 1st
So rebased the patch on 3.X and one of the added unit tests actually
exposed a bug that was just introduced in CASSANDRA-12060
. Attached new,
rebased patch here, however doubtful it's going to make it into 3.10.

Also raised CASSANDRA-12867
 to cover the bug.

Note: Did a test in this patch uncover something else?

yesterday

I discussed the patch with Aleksey Yeschenko

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith
 wrote:
>  All I am demanding is that these "not public" actions be made
> "open" and public, inline with ASF ideals.

All of us on the Board feel very strongly about conversations happening in
public -- in harmony with ASF ideals, the will of the Members who elect us,
and the sentiments of the wider Apache community.

In fact, a staple of Board's oversight activities is to scan private lists
periodically looking for conversations that didn't need to be private and then
to remind the participants that such conversations need to be shunted onto
public lists.

However, there is a limited selection of topics which are appropriate for the
private lists: primarily those relating to open security issues, certain legal
concerns, and personnel. People who have access to those conversations
are expected to keep them in confidence.

The recent conversations which took place on private lists regarding the
Cassandra community are interwoven with passages which ought to stay private.
It would extraordinary and inappropriate to simply make them public.

Please bear in mind that there are actually several hundred people from a wide
variety of backgrounds who subscribe to the ostensibly "private"
board@apache list, so "private" is relative and the activities of the
ASF Board are in fact overwatched by many conscientious and unshrinking
participants.  Furthermore, although there are not as many subscribers to the
private@cassandra list, there are still hundreds of people with access to its
archives.

I am happy to state that a principle concern of mine as a Board member is
ensuring that our projects are governed by independent individuals and that no
one company exercises undue influence.  This is imperative because vendor
neutrality is fundamental to the ASF's value proposition, because it is a
legal requirement of our status as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charity, and because
it has proven incredibly successful over time at fostering vibrant
communities who produce great software.

The principle of project independence applies to all Apache projects and
requires ongoing effort by our PMCs.  The wider Cassandra community should
look to the Cassandra PMC as the entity primarily responsible for upholding
this crucial principle.

Marvin Humphrey

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Ross Gardler]

Jim already replied but I want to remove any doubt...

If members of this community are unaware of the actions of the board in 
relation to this project it is a failing of the PMC not the board. See Jim's 
email for more...

---
Twitter: @rgardler


From: Benedict Elliott Smith 
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2016 5:12:18 AM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Cc: bo...@apache.org; Łukasz Dywicki; Chris Mattmann; Kelly Sommers; Jim 
Jagielski
Subject: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

I would hope the board would engage with criticism substantively, and that 
"long emails" to boards@ would be responded to on their merit, without a 
grassroots effort to apply pressure.

In lieu of that, it is very hard for the community to "speak with one voice" 
because we do not know what actions the board has undertaken.  This is at odds 
with "The Apache Way" core tenet of Openness.

The actions I have seen on the public fora by both Chris and Mark make me doubt 
the actions in private were reasonable.

I reiterate that the board should make all of its discussions about DataStax, 
particularly those with the PMC-private list, public.  Otherwise the community 
cannot perform the function you ask.




On 5 November 2016 at 03:08, Ross Gardler  wrote:
[In the mail below I try not to cast judgement, I do not know enough of the 
background to have an opinion on this specific situation. My comments are in 
response to the question “Where are the board's guidelines then, or do they 
make it up as they go?”.]

The boards guidelines are the Apache Way. This is a fluid thing that adapts to 
individual project needs but has a few common pillars in all projects, e.g. PMC 
is responsible for community health and PMC members are expected to act as 
individuals in the interest of the community. The board is empowered, by the 
ASF membership (individuals with merit) to take any action necessary to ensure 
a PMC is carrying out its duty.

If a PMC is being ineffective then the board only has blunt instruments to work 
with. Their actions appear to cut deep because they have no scalpel with which 
to work. The scalpel should be in the hands of the PMC, but by definition if 
the board intervenes the PMC is failing to use the scalpel.

So how do we identify appropriate action? Well I can tell you that any action 
of the board will result in more dissatisfied PMC members than satisfied ones. 
This is because, by definition, if the board are acting it is because the PMC 
is failing in its duty to build a vendor neutral and healthy community. The 
measure is whether the broader community feel that the board are acting in 
their best interests – including those who have not been given the privilege of 
merit (yes, PMC membership and committership is a privilege not a right).

This is not to say the board are incapable of making a mistake. They are 9 
humans after all. However, I can assure you (based on painful experience) that 
getting 9 humans to agree to use a blunt instrument that will make a mess in 
the short term is extremely hard. That’s why we have a board of 9 rather than 5 
(or any other smaller number) it minimizes the chances of error. It’s also why 
the board is usually slower to move than one might expect.

However, should the board make a mistake the correct action is to get the 
community as a whole to express their concern. Demonstrate that the community, 
as a whole, feels that the board acted inappropriately. Don’t waste time with 
long emails to board@. The people here trust in the process and the board. We 
don’t know what’s been happening inside your project, we don’t pass judgement. 
To make us care you must have your community speak with one voice. Demonstrate 
that you have consensus around your opinions. Then, and only then, will the 
membership - the people who vote for the board and hold them accountable – 
accept your argument that the board have acted inappropriately.

Ross

From: Benedict Elliott Smith [mailto:bened...@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 7:08 PM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Cc: Apache Board ; Łukasz Dywicki ; 
Chris Mattmann ; Kelly Sommers ; 
Jim Jagielski 
Subject: Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

Where are the board's guidelines then, or do they make it up as they go? Flame 
wars are a risk of every public forum and discussion, and doing everything in 
public is one of the tenets of the ASF.

Jim Jagielski stated to me on twitter that a bare minimum of discussions happen 
in private, and did not list this as one of the exceptions, despite it being 
the context. His statement was inline with the link I provided, and he is a 
board member.  So ostensibly a board member agrees, at least in principle.

Regardless, the issue in question is if the board was sufficiently hostile to 
DataStax for them to 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Jeff Jirsa]

My first reaction to seeing this come in was to laugh - not because it's
funny, but because the only other thing I could think to do was cry. You've
misinterpreted or misunderstood almost everything in this post, and instead
of reflecting on your side of the interaction, you've attributed the
outcome to selfishness on the opposite side.

First, let's set aside tinkerpop. This is a Cassandra list, let's focus on
Cassandra. Different committers, different PMCs, different project.

The thesis of your pasted gist is that you tried to contribute and were
pushed away. You hypothesize that it's done with lack of will to pull in
other people's work, and that this blocks outside contributors. I firmly
disagree with your conclusion.

Your gist details a proposed transition from ant to maven on a 6 or 7 year
old project. You make a (relatively weak) case for it on technical merit.
You are met with a combination of silence and resistance - a project with
years of inertia, already out of the incubator, with build systems already
in place, with history and convention on the side of ant has little desire
to change from ant to maven, especially at the request of a person without
a history of contributions to the project. If you were to submit a change
to maven and disappear, who will maintain that change? Is there reason to
believe you're willing to maintain it long term? Have you ever contributed
non-invasive changes before, is there an evidence that this is the right
thing for the project? That is - the change you proposed is invasive, not
strictly necessary (wasn't a bug fix), and is being proposed by a newcomer,
which isn't a problem, but it means your proposal needs significant
supporting evidence to justify the disruption it would cause. This isn't
the same as proposing an improvement to the database, it's changing the
workflow of dozens of people and LOTS and LOTS of existing systems (CI and
release workflows, for example) - you need to be able to defend and justify
that change, as it likely causes ALL developers to change ALL of their
workflows. And quite frankly, you didn't.

You then *materially mischaracterize* the interaction "Whole discussion
last for few mode days but at the end it was shut down by datastax
employee", and you selectively quote part of the exchange, but leave out
his closing sentence "*I don't want to give you the impression I am either
a gatekeeper or shooting down your proposal. I'm just attempting to explain
my perception **of the view of the existing contributors*."

You indicate that the decisions made by the PMC force other companies to
run forks (citing Stratio as an example). Here, again, history doesn't just
find this unsupportable, but patently untrue. Time and time again the PMC
made the decision to include code specifically so that Stratio wouldn't
need to fork.

Here's an example where code was backported to a stable release against
typical convention (new features don't go into stable releases)
specifically to enable Stratio not to fork:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8717
Here's an example where Datastax committers not only reached out to Stratio
to ensure that their software would be compatible with the upcoming major
engine rewrite, but actually did the engineering work to ensure
compatibility FOR them: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9459
(note that it was designed by Datastax employed committers FOR Stratio, and
that the patch came from Datastax  committers).

You indicate that discontinuation of thrift was seen by outsiders as
marketing driven. The discontinuation of thrift is technical in nature -
it's implementation has a ton of edge cases, it's existence introduces
risk. It's more code to maintain, and it's now less performant than the
native CQL. The preference for CQL over thrift evolved over time, it's
easier for newcomers, it's easier for most people to reason about, and the
3.0 engine (ticket 8099) optimized storage for CQL, moving thrift to second
class status. This isn't marketing, this is tech. The communication may
have been poor (though to be fair, it was discussed in detail on various
JIRA tickets, which is sent to various mailing lists, so it "happened" in
the Apache sense).

You then assert that communication with former employees indicates that
collaboration with the cassandra team was hard. Easy/Hard is subjective,
but what I suggest is that collaboration with the former-apache-cassandra
team at Datastax requires folks to conform to the open source workflow -
Datastax teams didn't get to short-cut the process and push features into
the DB, they had to open tickets and get code reviewed just like everyone
else. That's how things are SUPPOSED to work. Is it more difficult than
sending a patch and having someone ninja it in? Absolutely. Does the team
of committers have fairly high standard as to what code they'll accept?
Absolutely. Is the bar TOO high? It's a distributed system with a lot of
nuanced edge cases, a lot of us 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Benedict Elliott Smith]

Thanks Jeff, that was very well put.

I would quibble on one point, though: the ship has never sailed on topics
of community.  How the board acts towards the PMC and companies in the
community matters a great deal for continuing relations, as well as for
other projects.

The question is: did the board members all behave in a manner that the PMC
felt was reasonable and impartial?  What I saw suggested they did not; if
the PMC members agree, then perhaps the discussions should be made public*
so the community can decide their view.  Because if it is the case, that is
a *serious* problem the ASF needs to address.  The board must be held to an
even higher standard than the PMCs it governs.

*as the board appears to have just invested you with the authority to do,
if Jim is to be believed.

On 5 November 2016 at 15:33, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:

> I'm going to attempt to give the most complete answer I can without
> posting comments that were said with the expectation of privacy - it's not
> my place to violate that expectation. Some things discussed here are things
> I wouldn't typically mention in public (notably the topic of trademark
> compliance), but since it has already been mentioned by others and posted
> in the minutes, I'm going to be as open and compete as I can for the sake
> of the community.
>
> For the record and for context, I'm a member of the PMC, voted into the
> PMC fairly recently, but neither a Datastax employee nor customer.
>
> The ASF has very strict guidelines in the way they expect projects to be
> run. Some of these guidelines are hard legal requirements (protecting brand
> trademarks), some are designed to protect the health of the project
> (ensuring diverse contributors, lack of control by a single corporate
> entity).
>
> For a very long time, the most active committers and PMC members were
> Datastax employees - as full time sponsored contributors, they drove the
> vast majority of features. In addition to sponsoring the full time
> contributors, Datastax also actively tried to grow the community - for
> their business to grow, they need adoption of Apache Cassandra, so they
> spent a lot of time and money actively trying to find more contributors and
> creating opportunities for people to learn about Cassandra.
>
> Unfortunately, two unrelated problems arose.
>
> First, apparently, folks like Lucasz'  frustration and decisions like not
> wanting to have in-tree drivers are misinterpreted (in my opinion) as
> inappropriate control. Additionally, the Apache Way calls for decisions to
> be made In public, where a record exists. Some (many?) decisions were
> happening in places like IRC (real time collaboration among full time
> developers) which, while not hidden or private, wasn't logged (it is now)
> and wasn't necessarily obvious to casual observers. While I'll respond to
> Lucasz's email directly in a moment (I find many parts of it incorrect),
> the APPEARANCE for people only barely familiar with the project is that
> Datastax was likely inappropriately controlling the project, a violation of
> ASF guidelines.
>
> Second, some of what Datastax perceived as well intentioned community
> building occasionally violated trademark guidelines. I suspect the most
> likely cause is that marketing materials were written by marketing folks
> who don't understand trademark law. This isn't subjective. The active
> members of the PMC (which, at the time, were primarily Datastax employees)
> ARE responsible for policing trademark and MUST (unambiguously) correct
> misuse - that didn't happen as often as it should have. My opinion is that
> it didn't happen because the PMC was heads down on code and focusing on the
> database, not the marketing, but that's not an acceptable answer.
>
> The combination of these two factors causes the ASF to become involved.
> Apache Cassandra isn't alone here - other big data platforms of various
> shapes are also having similar interactions with the ASF, likely for
> similar reasons. There has been (and will continue to be) communication to
> ensure that ASF trademarks are respected and that Datastax doesn't exert
> undue control over the project. That communication was not a one time
> message - it was back and forth communication for quite some time at the
> PMC level.
>
> Factual objective background out of the way, I'll switch to opinion and
> speculation.
>
> Because this isn't an isolated case (ASF has to deal with multiple
> projects having similar issues) and everyone involved has strong opinions
> that they're acting in the best interest of the project, I SUSPECT that
> frustration runs high, tempers are short, and occasionally things are said
> that shouldn't be said - some of which one may classify as "prematurely
> inflammatory". This serve[s|d] to drive a wedge between two groups that
> nominally have the same goal - a strong Apache Cassandra project.
>
> Ultimately, Datastax has an obligation to their investors to make money
> and 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Jeremy Hanna]

Ultimately it doesn't matter now. The project has a bright future with the 
involvement of all individuals regardless of the company they work for. That's 
the important thing.

> On Nov 5, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Jeremy Hanna  wrote:
> 
> No it wasn't. You're citing the eventual and agreed upon outcome. I was 
> talking about the approach which is clear in the dev and user list threads 
> that the board was involved in. It is also apparently much more apparent in 
> the private threads which apparently the PMC can make public.
> 
>> On Nov 5, 2016, at 10:02 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> 
>> Which is what was done: 
>> https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Cassandra.html
>> 
>>> On Nov 5, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Jeremy Hanna  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> If the ASF is at risk with a single company allowed to dominate a project 
>>> then why couldn't the approach have been something like: "great job on 
>>> building a successful project and community. We think there is great 
>>> potential for more involvement at the core contribution level. How can we 
>>> work together to augment the existing efforts to encourage contribution and 
>>> bring in new contributors? By the way here are a couple of policy and 
>>> trademark things that we need to get fixed."
>>> 
>>> I didn't understand the assumption that DataStax was doing something 
>>> nefarious nor the approach that was taken.  On a personal note I had tried 
>>> to ask about evidence and the approach previously but was ignored: 
>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cassandra.apache.org/msg09101.html  
>>> Perhaps that was due to the volume of messages on that thread but I don't 
>>> feel those questions were ever addressed.
>>> 
>>> Regardless, I see a positive way forward for the project and am grateful to 
>>> everyone working towards that.
>>> 
>> 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Jeff Jirsa]

I'm going to attempt to give the most complete answer I can without posting 
comments that were said with the expectation of privacy - it's not my place to 
violate that expectation. Some things discussed here are things I wouldn't 
typically mention in public (notably the topic of trademark compliance), but 
since it has already been mentioned by others and posted in the minutes, I'm 
going to be as open and compete as I can for the sake of the community. 

For the record and for context, I'm a member of the PMC, voted into the PMC 
fairly recently, but neither a Datastax employee nor customer.

The ASF has very strict guidelines in the way they expect projects to be run. 
Some of these guidelines are hard legal requirements (protecting brand 
trademarks), some are designed to protect the health of the project (ensuring 
diverse contributors, lack of control by a single corporate entity).

For a very long time, the most active committers and PMC members were Datastax 
employees - as full time sponsored contributors, they drove the vast majority 
of features. In addition to sponsoring the full time contributors, Datastax 
also actively tried to grow the community - for their business to grow, they 
need adoption of Apache Cassandra, so they spent a lot of time and money 
actively trying to find more contributors and creating opportunities for people 
to learn about Cassandra.

Unfortunately, two unrelated problems arose.

First, apparently, folks like Lucasz'  frustration and decisions like not 
wanting to have in-tree drivers are misinterpreted (in my opinion) as 
inappropriate control. Additionally, the Apache Way calls for decisions to be 
made In public, where a record exists. Some (many?) decisions were happening in 
places like IRC (real time collaboration among full time developers) which, 
while not hidden or private, wasn't logged (it is now) and wasn't necessarily 
obvious to casual observers. While I'll respond to Lucasz's email directly in a 
moment (I find many parts of it incorrect), the APPEARANCE for people only 
barely familiar with the project is that Datastax was likely inappropriately 
controlling the project, a violation of ASF guidelines.

Second, some of what Datastax perceived as well intentioned community building 
occasionally violated trademark guidelines. I suspect the most likely cause is 
that marketing materials were written by marketing folks who don't understand 
trademark law. This isn't subjective. The active members of the PMC (which, at 
the time, were primarily Datastax employees) ARE responsible for policing 
trademark and MUST (unambiguously) correct misuse - that didn't happen as often 
as it should have. My opinion is that it didn't happen because the PMC was 
heads down on code and focusing on the database, not the marketing, but that's 
not an acceptable answer. 

The combination of these two factors causes the ASF to become involved. Apache 
Cassandra isn't alone here - other big data platforms of various shapes are 
also having similar interactions with the ASF, likely for similar reasons. 
There has been (and will continue to be) communication to ensure that ASF 
trademarks are respected and that Datastax doesn't exert undue control over the 
project. That communication was not a one time message - it was back and forth 
communication for quite some time at the PMC level. 

Factual objective background out of the way, I'll switch to opinion and 
speculation. 

Because this isn't an isolated case (ASF has to deal with multiple projects 
having similar issues) and everyone involved has strong opinions that they're 
acting in the best interest of the project, I SUSPECT that frustration runs 
high, tempers are short, and occasionally things are said that shouldn't be 
said - some of which one may classify as "prematurely inflammatory". This 
serve[s|d] to drive a wedge between two groups that nominally have the same 
goal - a strong Apache Cassandra project. 

Ultimately, Datastax has an obligation to their investors to make money and the 
ASF has a mission of protecting it's project (where project includes the 
intellectual property, Apache Cassandra codebase and websites, mailing lists 
and community as a whole). It's apparent that some of the communication has 
caused Datastax to re-evaluate it's level of involvement - no committers have 
been removed by the ASF, no members of the PMC have been removed, though we 
collectively have been (repeatedly) instructed to follow the Apache Way.

While I'm unable to tell you Datastax's exact motivation (again, not a Datastax 
employee), I suspect it's a combination of limiting liability, 
anger/frustration at some of the tone/messaging, and deciding not to give away 
expensive, difficult work for free. 

And that's what most of us hoped would not happen, but it'll be OK. 

Supporters on the ASF board and members of the ASF will say that The Apache Way 
exists to protect the project against exactly this type of 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Jeremy Hanna]

No it wasn't. You're citing the eventual and agreed upon outcome. I was talking 
about the approach which is clear in the dev and user list threads that the 
board was involved in. It is also apparently much more apparent in the private 
threads which apparently the PMC can make public.

> On Nov 5, 2016, at 10:02 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> Which is what was done: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Cassandra.html
> 
>> On Nov 5, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Jeremy Hanna  wrote:
>> 
>> If the ASF is at risk with a single company allowed to dominate a project 
>> then why couldn't the approach have been something like: "great job on 
>> building a successful project and community. We think there is great 
>> potential for more involvement at the core contribution level. How can we 
>> work together to augment the existing efforts to encourage contribution and 
>> bring in new contributors? By the way here are a couple of policy and 
>> trademark things that we need to get fixed."
>> 
>> I didn't understand the assumption that DataStax was doing something 
>> nefarious nor the approach that was taken.  On a personal note I had tried 
>> to ask about evidence and the approach previously but was ignored: 
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cassandra.apache.org/msg09101.html  Perhaps 
>> that was due to the volume of messages on that thread but I don't feel those 
>> questions were ever addressed.
>> 
>> Regardless, I see a positive way forward for the project and am grateful to 
>> everyone working towards that.
>> 
> 

Re: Broader community involvement in 4.0 (WAS Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0)

[Jake Luciani]

Hi Tyler,

There is a nice guide now in the docs on how to contribute[1].
If you try it and find holes you can also help by contributing to those
docs.

-Jake
[1]: http://cassandra.apache.org/doc/latest/development/index.html

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Tyler Tolley 
wrote:

> Just want to weigh in my 2 cents. I've been following the dev list for
> quite a while and wanted to contribute. As I approached trying to handle
> some lhf, I couldn't find any instructions on how to check out, build, test
> or any guidance on coding standards and best practices. Maybe these existed
> and were hard to find, maybe I was too inexperienced to understand them.
> Either way, given my experience at the time, I wasn't able to contribute
> and never came back.
>
> If that hasn't changed, that's where I would start to get more people
> contributing. I realize the project is pretty complex, but the more we can
> lower the bar of entry, the more people will contribute. This doesn't help
> solve the problem of more people to review big changes right away, but
> perhaps it will free experienced contributors up to help with those. Again,
> just my 2 cents.
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2016, 7:19 AM Benedict Elliott Smith 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ed,
> >
> > I would like to try and clear up what I perceive to be some
> > misunderstandings.
> >
> > Aleksey is relating that for *complex* tickets there are desperately few
> > people with the expertise necessary to review them.  In some cases it can
> > amount to several weeks' work, possibly requiring multiple people, which
> is
> > a huge investment.  EPaxos is an example where its complexity likely
> needs
> > multiple highly qualified reviewers.
> >
> > Simpler tickets on the other hand languish due to poor incentives - they
> > aren't sexy for volunteers, and aren't important for the corporately
> > sponsored contributors, who also have finite resources.  Nobody *wants*
> to
> > do them.
> >
> > This does contribute to an emergent lack of diversity in the pool of
> > contributors, but it doesn't discount Aleksey's point.  We need to find a
> > way forward that handles both of these concerns.
> >
> > Sponsored contributors have invested time into efforts to expand the
> > committer pool before, though they have universally failed.  Efforts like
> > the "low hanging fruit squad" seem like a good idea that might payoff,
> with
> > the only risk being the cloud hanging over the project right now.  I
> think
> > constructive engagement with potential sponsors is probably the way
> > forward.
> >
> > (As an aside, the policy on test coverage was historically very poor
> > indeed, but is I believe much stronger today - try not to judge current
> > behaviours on those of the past)
> >
> >
> > On 5 November 2016 at 00:05, Edward Capriolo 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "I’m sure users running Cassandra in production would prefer actual
> > proper
> > > reviews to non-review +1s."
> > >
> > > Again, you are implying that only you can do a proper job.
> > >
> > > Lets be specific here: You and I are working on this one:
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10825
> > >
> > > Now, Ariel reported there was no/low code coverage. I went looking a
> the
> > > code and found a problem.
> > >
> > > If someone were to merge this: I would have more incentive to look for
> > > other things, then I might find more bugs and improvements. If this
> > process
> > > keeps going, I would naturally get exposed to more of the code. Finally
> > in
> > > maybe (I don't know in 10 or 20 years) I could become one of these
> > > specialists.
> > >
> > > Lets peal this situation apart:
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10825
> > >
> > > "If you grep test/src and cassandra-dtest you will find that the string
> > > OverloadedException doesn't appear anywhere."
> > >
> > > Now let me flip this situation around:
> > >
> > > "I'm sure the users running Cassandra in production would prefer proper
> > > coding practice like writing unit and integration test to rubber stamp
> > > merges"
> > >
> > > When the shoe is on the other foot it does not feel so nice.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dunno. A sneaky correctness or data corruption bug. A performance
> > > > regression. Or something that can take a node/cluster down.
> > > >
> > > > Of course no process is bullet-proof. The purpose of review is to
> > > minimise
> > > > the odds of such a thing happening.
> > > >
> > > > I’m sure users running Cassandra in production would prefer actual
> > proper
> > > > reviews to non-review +1s.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > AY
> > > >
> > > > On 4 November 2016 at 23:03:23, Edward Capriolo (
> edlinuxg...@gmail.com
> > )
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I feel that is really standing up on a soap box. What 

Re: Broader community involvement in 4.0 (WAS Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0)

[Tyler Tolley]

Just want to weigh in my 2 cents. I've been following the dev list for
quite a while and wanted to contribute. As I approached trying to handle
some lhf, I couldn't find any instructions on how to check out, build, test
or any guidance on coding standards and best practices. Maybe these existed
and were hard to find, maybe I was too inexperienced to understand them.
Either way, given my experience at the time, I wasn't able to contribute
and never came back.

If that hasn't changed, that's where I would start to get more people
contributing. I realize the project is pretty complex, but the more we can
lower the bar of entry, the more people will contribute. This doesn't help
solve the problem of more people to review big changes right away, but
perhaps it will free experienced contributors up to help with those. Again,
just my 2 cents.

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016, 7:19 AM Benedict Elliott Smith 
wrote:

> Hi Ed,
>
> I would like to try and clear up what I perceive to be some
> misunderstandings.
>
> Aleksey is relating that for *complex* tickets there are desperately few
> people with the expertise necessary to review them.  In some cases it can
> amount to several weeks' work, possibly requiring multiple people, which is
> a huge investment.  EPaxos is an example where its complexity likely needs
> multiple highly qualified reviewers.
>
> Simpler tickets on the other hand languish due to poor incentives - they
> aren't sexy for volunteers, and aren't important for the corporately
> sponsored contributors, who also have finite resources.  Nobody *wants* to
> do them.
>
> This does contribute to an emergent lack of diversity in the pool of
> contributors, but it doesn't discount Aleksey's point.  We need to find a
> way forward that handles both of these concerns.
>
> Sponsored contributors have invested time into efforts to expand the
> committer pool before, though they have universally failed.  Efforts like
> the "low hanging fruit squad" seem like a good idea that might payoff, with
> the only risk being the cloud hanging over the project right now.  I think
> constructive engagement with potential sponsors is probably the way
> forward.
>
> (As an aside, the policy on test coverage was historically very poor
> indeed, but is I believe much stronger today - try not to judge current
> behaviours on those of the past)
>
>
> On 5 November 2016 at 00:05, Edward Capriolo 
> wrote:
>
> > "I’m sure users running Cassandra in production would prefer actual
> proper
> > reviews to non-review +1s."
> >
> > Again, you are implying that only you can do a proper job.
> >
> > Lets be specific here: You and I are working on this one:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10825
> >
> > Now, Ariel reported there was no/low code coverage. I went looking a the
> > code and found a problem.
> >
> > If someone were to merge this: I would have more incentive to look for
> > other things, then I might find more bugs and improvements. If this
> process
> > keeps going, I would naturally get exposed to more of the code. Finally
> in
> > maybe (I don't know in 10 or 20 years) I could become one of these
> > specialists.
> >
> > Lets peal this situation apart:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10825
> >
> > "If you grep test/src and cassandra-dtest you will find that the string
> > OverloadedException doesn't appear anywhere."
> >
> > Now let me flip this situation around:
> >
> > "I'm sure the users running Cassandra in production would prefer proper
> > coding practice like writing unit and integration test to rubber stamp
> > merges"
> >
> > When the shoe is on the other foot it does not feel so nice.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dunno. A sneaky correctness or data corruption bug. A performance
> > > regression. Or something that can take a node/cluster down.
> > >
> > > Of course no process is bullet-proof. The purpose of review is to
> > minimise
> > > the odds of such a thing happening.
> > >
> > > I’m sure users running Cassandra in production would prefer actual
> proper
> > > reviews to non-review +1s.
> > >
> > > --
> > > AY
> > >
> > > On 4 November 2016 at 23:03:23, Edward Capriolo (edlinuxg...@gmail.com
> )
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I feel that is really standing up on a soap box. What would be the
> worst
> > > thing that happens here
> >
>

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Jim Jagielski]

Which is what was done: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Cassandra.html

> On Nov 5, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Jeremy Hanna  wrote:
> 
> If the ASF is at risk with a single company allowed to dominate a project 
> then why couldn't the approach have been something like: "great job on 
> building a successful project and community. We think there is great 
> potential for more involvement at the core contribution level. How can we 
> work together to augment the existing efforts to encourage contribution and 
> bring in new contributors? By the way here are a couple of policy and 
> trademark things that we need to get fixed."
> 
> I didn't understand the assumption that DataStax was doing something 
> nefarious nor the approach that was taken.  On a personal note I had tried to 
> ask about evidence and the approach previously but was ignored: 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cassandra.apache.org/msg09101.html  Perhaps 
> that was due to the volume of messages on that thread but I don't feel those 
> questions were ever addressed.
> 
> Regardless, I see a positive way forward for the project and am grateful to 
> everyone working towards that.
> 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Jim Jagielski]

Please note that, yes, at time, there are discussion between
the PMC and the board which are done either or the board@ list
or in "private" on private@.

This is between the board and the PMC, of course.

However, why does it fall to the *board* to then bring that
conversation to "the public". Shouldn't it, logically, fall
to the PMC? The board is "responsible" for the healthy
operation of the PMC, but the PMC is responsible for the
healthy running of the project and the community. If a
PMC is so dysfunctional that it neglects to involve *its
own community* in what is going on, then it kind of shows that
the PMC did have issues, doesn't it?

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Jeff Jirsa]

I agree - thanks for sending it, Lukasz. I think we can use it as a great 
learning opportunity - because nearly every point you made I find to be 
factually and objectively wrong, and the fact that members of the ASF take it 
at face value is part of the problem - poorly informed opinions on complicated 
matters create the appearance of impropriety and malice, and that's unfortunate.

I'll go through some of the finer points in the near future as time permits.

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 5:14 PM, Chris Mattmann  wrote:
> 
> Thank you for sending this. I am not going to reply in depth now, but will do 
> so to Kelly and
> others over the weekend, but this is *precisely* the reason that I have been 
> so emphatic
> about trying to get the PMC to see the road they have already gone done and 
> the ship that
> has already set sail. 
> 
> Those not familiar with Lucene and its vote to merge Lucene/Solr may want to 
> Google the
> Apache archives around 2010 and see some of the effects of Individual 
> organizations and
> vendors driving supposedly vendor neutral Apache projects. It’s not even 
> conjecture at this
> point in Cassandra. The Board has acted as Greg referred to else-thread, and 
> we asked Jonathan & the
> PMC to find a new chair (rotation is healthy yes, but we also need the chair 
> to be the eyes 
> and ears of the Board and we asked for a change there). Mark Thomas from the 
> Apache Board
> also has a set of actions that he is working with the PMC having to do with 
> trademarks and
> other items to move towards more independent governance.
> 
> Your experience that you cite below Lukasz is precisely one I found in 
> Lucene/Solr, Hadoop, 
> Maven, and other projects. Sometimes the ship has been righted – for example 
> in all of these
> projects they have moved towards much more independent governance, welcoming 
> to contributors,
> and shared community for the project. However, in other cases (see IBATIS), 
> it didn’t work out, for
> various reasons including community issues, but also misunderstandings as to 
> the way that the 
> ASF works. I know my own experience of being an unpaid, occasional 
> contributor to some open
> source projects has put me to a disadvantage even in some ASF projects driven 
> by a single vendor.
> I’ve also been paid to work on open source (at the ASF and elsewhere) and in 
> doing so, been on the
> other side of the code. That’s why ASF projects and my own work in particular 
> I strive to try and 
> remain neutral and to address these types of issues by being welcoming, lower 
> the bar to committership
> and PMC, and moving “contributors” to having a vote/shared governance of the 
> project at the ASF.
> 
> Thanks for sending this email and your insights are welcome below. The Apache 
> Board should hear this
> too so I am CC’ing them.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/4/16, 5:03 PM, "Łukasz Dywicki"  wrote:
> 
>Good evening,
>I feel myself a bit called to table by both Kelly and Chris. Thing is I 
> don’t know personally nor have any relationship with both of you. I’m not 
> even ASF member. My tweet was simply reaction for Kelly complaints about ASF 
> punishing out DataStax. Kelly timeline also contained statement such "forming 
> a long term strategy to grow diversity around” which reminded me my attempts 
> to collaborate on Cassandra and Tinkerpop projects to grow such diversity. I 
> collected message links and quotes and put it into gist who could be read by 
> anyone: 
>https://gist.github.com/splatch/aebe4ad4d127922642bee0dc9a8b1ec1 
> 
>I don’t want to bring now these topics back and disscuss technical stuff 
> over again. It happened to me in the past to refuse (or vote against) some 
> change proposals in other Apache projects I am involved. I was on the other 
> ("bad guy") side multiple times. I simply collected public records of 
> interactions with DataStax staff I was aware, simply because of my personal 
> involvement. It shown how some ideas, yet cassandra mailing list don’t have 
> many of these coming from externals, are getting put a side with very little 
> or even lack of will to pull in others people work in. This is blocking point 
> for anyone coming from external sides to get involved into project and help 
> it growing. If someone changes requires moves in project core or it’s public 
> APIs that person will require support from project members to get this done. 
> If such help will not be given it any outside change will be ever completed 
> and noone will invest time in doing something more than fixing typos or 
> common programmer errors which we all do from time to time. Despite of 
> impersonal nature of communications in Internet we still do have human 
> interactions and we all have just one chance to make first impression. If we 
> made it wrong at beginning its hard to fix it later on. 
>Some decisions made in past by project PMCs lead to situation 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Jeremy Hanna]

If the ASF is at risk with a single company allowed to dominate a project then 
why couldn't the approach have been something like: "great job on building a 
successful project and community. We think there is great potential for more 
involvement at the core contribution level. How can we work together to augment 
the existing efforts to encourage contribution and bring in new contributors? 
By the way here are a couple of policy and trademark things that we need to get 
fixed."

I didn't understand the assumption that DataStax was doing something nefarious 
nor the approach that was taken.  On a personal note I had tried to ask about 
evidence and the approach previously but was ignored: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cassandra.apache.org/msg09101.html  Perhaps 
that was due to the volume of messages on that thread but I don't feel those 
questions were ever addressed.

Regardless, I see a positive way forward for the project and am grateful to 
everyone working towards that.

> On Nov 5, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Mark Struberg  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!
> 
> A few things really should FIRST get handled in private. This is the same 
> regardless whether it's about board oversight or you as a PMC. 
> 
> An example is e.g. when we detect trademark violations. Or if ASF hosted 
> pages make unfair advertisement for ONE of the involved contributors. In such 
> cases the PMC (or board if the PMC doesn't act by itself) first tries to 
> solve those issues _without_ breaking porcelain! Which means the respective 
> person or company will get contacted in private and not immediately get hit 
> by public shaming and blaming. In most cases it's just an oversight and too 
> eager marketing people who don't understand the impact. Usually the problems 
> quickly get resolved without anyone loosing it's face.
> 
> 
> Oh, talking about the 'impact' and some people wondering why the ASF board is 
> so pissed?
> Well, the point is that in extremis the whole §501(c),3 (non-for-profit) 
> status is at risk! Means if we allow a single vendor to create an unfair 
> business benefit, then this might be interpreted as a profit making mechanism 
> by the federal tax office...
> This is one of the huge differences to some other OSS projects which are 
> basically owned by one company or where companies simply can buy a seat in 
> the board. 
> 
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 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!
> 
> 
> PPS: DataStax did a lot for Cassandra, but the public perception nowadays 
> seems to be that DataStax donated Cassandra to the ASF. This is not true. It 
> was created and contributed by Facebook 
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/Cassandramany years before DataStax was 
> even founded
> 
> 
> 
>> On Saturday, 5 November 2016, 13:12, Benedict Elliott Smith 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I would hope the board would engage with criticism substantively, and that 
>> "long emails" to boards@ would be responded to on their merit, without a 
>> grassroots effort to apply pressure.
>> 
>> 
>> In lieu of that, it is very hard for the community to "speak with one voice" 
>> because we do not know what actions the board has undertaken.  This is at 
>> odds with "The Apache Way" core tenet of Openness.
>> 
>> 
>> The actions I have seen on the public fora by both Chris and Mark make me 
>> doubt the actions in private were reasonable.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I reiterate that the board should make all of its discussions about 
>> DataStax, particularly those with the PMC-private list, public.  Otherwise 
>> the community cannot perform the function you ask.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 5 November 2016 at 03:08, Ross Gardler  wrote:
>> 
>> [In the mail below I try not to cast judgement, I do not know enough of the 
>> background to have an opinion on this specific situation. My comments are in 
>> response to the question “Where are the board's guidelines then, or do they 
>> make it up as they go?”.]
>>> 
>>> The boards guidelines are the Apache Way. This is a fluid thing that adapts 
>>> to individual project needs but has a few common pillars in all projects, 
>>> e.g. PMC is responsible for community health and PMC members are expected 
>>> to act as individuals in the interest of the community. The board is 
>>> empowered, by the ASF membership (individuals with merit) to take any 
>>> action necessary to ensure a PMC is carrying out its duty.
>>> 
>>> If a PMC is being ineffective then the board only has blunt instruments to 
>>> 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Benedict Elliott Smith]

How am I misunderstanding you? "not in public" == "private"

The ASF trumpets openness, and you are now apparently campaigning for the
opposite.  All I am demanding is that these "not public" actions be made
"open" and public, inline with ASF ideals.

Ross indicated *this (Cassandra) community* needed to judge if the board
acted appropriately.  Several members of the community, myself included,
believe from the information we have that they may not have done.  If the
board cannot be open about its actions, what are we as a community - whose
views the ASF claims to value - to infer?



On 5 November 2016 at 14:29, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> You don't understand what I tried to say it seems: those actions HAVE been
> extensively discussed with both DataStax representatives and the Cassandra
> PMC since a LONG time. Just not in public. So this is nothing which just
> boiled up the last month - this really got pointed out amicably by the
> board for a LONG time before _finally_ they took actions!
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> On Saturday, 5 November 2016, 14:42, Benedict Elliott Smith <
> bened...@apache.org> wrote:
> >Whether or not the actions should have been "FIRST" taken in private,
> this is now a retrospective where we provide oversight for the overseers.
> >
> >
> >
> >I reiterate again that all discussions and actions undertaken should be
> made public.  This community has just been charged with judging if the
> board acted appropriately.  You have not.  We cannot make that judgement
> without the facts.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 5 November 2016 at 13:30, Mark Struberg 
> 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!
> >>
> >>A few things really should FIRST get handled in private. This is the
> same regardless whether it's about board oversight or you as a PMC.
> >>
> >>An example is e.g. when we detect trademark violations. Or if ASF hosted
> pages make unfair advertisement for ONE of the involved contributors. In
> such cases the PMC (or board if the PMC doesn't act by itself) first tries
> to solve those issues _without_ breaking porcelain! Which means the
> respective person or company will get contacted in private and not
> immediately get hit by public shaming and blaming. In most cases it's just
> an oversight and too eager marketing people who don't understand the
> impact. Usually the problems quickly get resolved without anyone loosing
> it's face.
> >>
> >>
> >>Oh, talking about the 'impact' and some people wondering why the ASF
> board is so pissed?
> >>Well, the point is that in extremis the whole §501(c),3 (non-for-profit)
> status is at risk! Means if we allow a single vendor to create an unfair
> business benefit, then this might be interpreted as a profit making
> mechanism by the federal tax office...
> >>This is one of the huge differences to some other OSS projects which are
> basically owned by one company or where companies simply can buy a seat in
> the board.
> >>
> >>
> >>LieGrue,
> >>strub
> >>
> >>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!
> >>
> >>
> >>PPS: DataStax did a lot for Cassandra, but the public perception
> nowadays seems to be that DataStax donated Cassandra to the ASF. This is
> not true. It was created and contributed by Facebook
> >>https://wiki.apache.org/ incubator/Cassandramany years before DataStax
> was even founded
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On Saturday, 5 November 2016, 13:12, Benedict Elliott Smith <
> bened...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>I would hope the board would engage with criticism substantively, and
> that "long emails" to boards@ would be responded to on their merit,
> without a grassroots effort to apply pressure.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>In lieu of that, it is very hard for the community to "speak with one
> voice" because we do not know what actions the board has undertaken.  This
> is at odds with "The Apache Way" core tenet of Openness.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The actions I have seen on the public fora by both Chris and Mark make
> me doubt the actions in private were reasonable.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I reiterate that the board should make all of its discussions about
> DataStax, particularly those with the PMC-private list, public.  Otherwise
> the community cannot perform the function you ask.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On 5 November 2016 at 03:08, Ross Gardler 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>[In the mail below I try not to cast judgement, I do not know enough of
> the background to have an opinion on this specific situation. My comments
> are 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Mark Struberg]

You don't understand what I tried to say it seems: those actions HAVE been 
extensively discussed with both DataStax representatives and the Cassandra PMC 
since a LONG time. Just not in public. So this is nothing which just boiled up 
the last month - this really got pointed out amicably by the board for a LONG 
time before _finally_ they took actions!


LieGrue,
strub


On Saturday, 5 November 2016, 14:42, Benedict Elliott Smith 
 wrote:
>Whether or not the actions should have been "FIRST" taken in private, this is 
>now a retrospective where we provide oversight for the overseers.
>
>
>
>I reiterate again that all discussions and actions undertaken should be made 
>public.  This community has just been charged with judging if the board acted 
>appropriately.  You have not.  We cannot make that judgement without the facts.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 5 November 2016 at 13:30, Mark Struberg  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!
>>
>>A few things really should FIRST get handled in private. This is the same 
>>regardless whether it's about board oversight or you as a PMC.
>>
>>An example is e.g. when we detect trademark violations. Or if ASF hosted 
>>pages make unfair advertisement for ONE of the involved contributors. In such 
>>cases the PMC (or board if the PMC doesn't act by itself) first tries to 
>>solve those issues _without_ breaking porcelain! Which means the respective 
>>person or company will get contacted in private and not immediately get hit 
>>by public shaming and blaming. In most cases it's just an oversight and too 
>>eager marketing people who don't understand the impact. Usually the problems 
>>quickly get resolved without anyone loosing it's face.
>>
>>
>>Oh, talking about the 'impact' and some people wondering why the ASF board is 
>>so pissed?
>>Well, the point is that in extremis the whole §501(c),3 (non-for-profit) 
>>status is at risk! Means if we allow a single vendor to create an unfair 
>>business benefit, then this might be interpreted as a profit making mechanism 
>>by the federal tax office...
>>This is one of the huge differences to some other OSS projects which are 
>>basically owned by one company or where companies simply can buy a seat in 
>>the board.
>>
>>
>>LieGrue,
>>strub
>>
>>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!
>>
>>
>>PPS: DataStax did a lot for Cassandra, but the public perception nowadays 
>>seems to be that DataStax donated Cassandra to the ASF. This is not true. It 
>>was created and contributed by Facebook
>>https://wiki.apache.org/ incubator/Cassandramany years before DataStax was 
>>even founded
>>
>>
>>
>>On Saturday, 5 November 2016, 13:12, Benedict Elliott Smith 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>I would hope the board would engage with criticism substantively, and that 
>>>"long emails" to boards@ would be responded to on their merit, without a 
>>>grassroots effort to apply pressure.
>>>
>>>
>>>In lieu of that, it is very hard for the community to "speak with one voice" 
>>>because we do not know what actions the board has undertaken.  This is at 
>>>odds with "The Apache Way" core tenet of Openness.
>>>
>>>
>>>The actions I have seen on the public fora by both Chris and Mark make me 
>>>doubt the actions in private were reasonable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I reiterate that the board should make all of its discussions about 
>>>DataStax, particularly those with the PMC-private list, public.  Otherwise 
>>>the community cannot perform the function you ask.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 5 November 2016 at 03:08, Ross Gardler  wrote:
>>>
>>>[In the mail below I try not to cast judgement, I do not know enough of the 
>>>background to have an opinion on this specific situation. My comments are in 
>>>response to the question “Where are the board's guidelines then, or do they 
>>>make it up as they go?”.]

The boards guidelines are the Apache Way. This is a fluid thing that adapts 
to individual project needs but has a few common pillars in all projects, 
e.g. PMC is responsible for community health and PMC members are expected 
to act as individuals in the interest of the community. The board is 
empowered, by the ASF membership (individuals with merit) to take any 
action necessary to ensure a PMC is carrying out its duty.

If a PMC is being ineffective then the board only has blunt instruments to 
work with. Their actions appear to cut deep because they have no scalpel 
with which to work. The scalpel should be in the 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Benedict Elliott Smith]

Whether or not the actions should have been "FIRST" taken in private, this
is now a retrospective where we provide oversight for the overseers.

I reiterate again that all discussions and actions undertaken should be
made public.  *This community* has just been charged with judging if the
board acted appropriately.  You have not.  We cannot make that judgement
without the facts.




On 5 November 2016 at 13:30, Mark Struberg 
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!
>
> A few things really should FIRST get handled in private. This is the same
> regardless whether it's about board oversight or you as a PMC.
>
> An example is e.g. when we detect trademark violations. Or if ASF hosted
> pages make unfair advertisement for ONE of the involved contributors. In
> such cases the PMC (or board if the PMC doesn't act by itself) first tries
> to solve those issues _without_ breaking porcelain! Which means the
> respective person or company will get contacted in private and not
> immediately get hit by public shaming and blaming. In most cases it's just
> an oversight and too eager marketing people who don't understand the
> impact. Usually the problems quickly get resolved without anyone loosing
> it's face.
>
>
> Oh, talking about the 'impact' and some people wondering why the ASF board
> is so pissed?
> Well, the point is that in extremis the whole §501(c),3 (non-for-profit)
> status is at risk! Means if we allow a single vendor to create an unfair
> business benefit, then this might be interpreted as a profit making
> mechanism by the federal tax office...
> This is one of the huge differences to some other OSS projects which are
> basically owned by one company or where companies simply can buy a seat in
> the board.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> 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!
>
>
> PPS: DataStax did a lot for Cassandra, but the public perception nowadays
> seems to be that DataStax donated Cassandra to the ASF. This is not true.
> It was created and contributed by Facebook
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/Cassandramany years before DataStax was
> even founded
>
>
>
> On Saturday, 5 November 2016, 13:12, Benedict Elliott Smith <
> bened...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >I would hope the board would engage with criticism substantively, and
> that "long emails" to boards@ would be responded to on their merit,
> without a grassroots effort to apply pressure.
> >
> >
> >In lieu of that, it is very hard for the community to "speak with one
> voice" because we do not know what actions the board has undertaken.  This
> is at odds with "The Apache Way" core tenet of Openness.
> >
> >
> >The actions I have seen on the public fora by both Chris and Mark make me
> doubt the actions in private were reasonable.
> >
> >
> >
> >I reiterate that the board should make all of its discussions about
> DataStax, particularly those with the PMC-private list, public.  Otherwise
> the community cannot perform the function you ask.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 5 November 2016 at 03:08, Ross Gardler 
> wrote:
> >
> >[In the mail below I try not to cast judgement, I do not know enough of
> the background to have an opinion on this specific situation. My comments
> are in response to the question “Where are the board's guidelines then, or
> do they make it up as they go?”.]
> >>
> >>The boards guidelines are the Apache Way. This is a fluid thing that
> adapts to individual project needs but has a few common pillars in all
> projects, e.g. PMC is responsible for community health and PMC members are
> expected to act as individuals in the interest of the community. The board
> is empowered, by the ASF membership (individuals with merit) to take any
> action necessary to ensure a PMC is carrying out its duty.
> >>
> >>If a PMC is being ineffective then the board only has blunt instruments
> to work with. Their actions appear to cut deep because they have no scalpel
> with which to work. The scalpel should be in the hands of the PMC, but by
> definition if the board intervenes the PMC is failing to use the scalpel.
> >>
> >>So how do we identify appropriate action? Well I can tell you that any
> action of the board will result in more dissatisfied PMC members than
> satisfied ones. This is because, by definition, if the board are acting it
> is because the PMC is failing in its duty to build a vendor neutral and
> healthy community. The measure is whether the broader community feel that
> the board are acting in their best interests – including those who have not
> been 

Re: Moderation

[Mark Struberg]

Russel, I don't read that out of Chris' answer.
He just tried to show how community development might look like if done a bit 
more openly.

Do you mind going back to Chris' original reply and re-read it again?
I've not interpreted it as anyone trying to make you look bad. Au contraire!


txs and LieGrue,
strub





> On Saturday, 5 November 2016, 13:56, Russell Bradberry  
> wrote:
> > It seems that your tactic of argument is to discredit me at every level in 
> > order 
> to show your superiority of sorts.  Let me set this straight, I am not 
> attempting to say that I am an authority on ASF or that I know how things 
> should 
> be run.  I also was not attempting to vilify you in front of the board or 
> vilify 
> you in any way.  My complaint is that your rhetoric is unprofessional; and as 
> a 
> representative of the board the language you use is, plainly, casting a bad 
> light on the ASF.
> 
> I understand all of your concerns and was not attempting to minimize them in 
> any 
> way; they are legitimate concerns.  The way you are handling them is what I 
> am 
> concerned with and the tone you take is what I believe is helping divide the 
> community.  Being the “villain” as you say is what is the problem.  If you 
> cast 
> yourself as the villain as a representative of the foundation you are then 
> making the foundation look bad.
> 
> Lastly, I may not have a vote, but I do have a voice.  Everyone in the 
> community 
> does and can be heard, if not then it isn’t much of a community at all. I 
> wouldn’t have you voted off the board nor do I want you to be voted off the 
> board, I have not enough information to make a sound decision in that regard. 
>  
> 
> All I ask if for some common professionalism and courtesy, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/4/16, 4:46 PM, "Chris Mattmann"  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Russ,
> 
> Sorry that you feel that way. I’m happy to be the villain when it comes 
> to 
> protecting
> those same ideals you cite regarding Apache in your below thread. You see 
> I’ve been
> around since 2004 and elected by the membership to the Board for the last 
> three years
> based on merit, and contributions towards those ideals over a decade of 
> the 
> ASF. 
> I’ve been around longer than Apache Cassandra and this community and 
> fully 
> intend 
> for that to continue. My job is not to only care about Cassandra. It’s to 
> ensure that the 
> ASF is a vendor neutral ground for ALL of its projects. You see I 
> actually 
> understand and 
> have read what’s required of me to serve the membership of the ASF and 
> its 
> communities. 
> I take this VERY seriously. Perhaps more than you know.
> 
> You see the other problem with your complaint about me – is that 
> unfortunately you
> do not have a voice to act on that complaint. You won’t have a vote in 
> the 
> next Apache
> Board election. You won’t have a vote in the next Members election. And 
> *that* is
> the rub. I wouldn’t even care if you did or not and you voted against me 
> on 
> the ballot.
> If the Apache Cassandra PMC or community cared enough about you or your 
> contributions
> to the project, you would have been made a committer, or PMC member, long 
> ago, and
> heck you would have even had a chance to become an ASF member where you 
> could do
> more than simply voice your displeasure with my actions, you would be 
> able 
> to vote with
> your feet against my tyranny of trying to make this project’s management 
> committee 
> understand their responsibilities for the ASF. I don’t even consider your 
> requests to have
> me vilified in front of the Board something that would disqualify you for 
> membership in 
> the PMC or committee. If you have been making contributions, even 
> discussion 
> threads,
> answering questions, etc., to the point of your prior emails including 
> this 
> one – why haven’t
> you been elected to have a binding voice within the project? Please ask 
> yourself that. 
> 
> In fact, please ask yourself – what is a “Cassandra MVP” compared to a 
> member of the 
> ASF which is home to the project? Also please go look at all the people 
> I’ve 
> been privy and 
> voted on granting membership to within the foundation since 2011, go look 
> at 
> some of the 
> functioning and healthy projects that don’t have a problem with vendor 
> neutrality at the 
> ASF, and *then* come and talk to me about how my professional and 
> character 
> isn’t such 
> to stand on the board of the ASF. Again, I’ll wait.
> 
> If it’s a hostile request to ask that a potentially inflammatory Twitter 
> discussion that I attempted
> to bring about to the *source of the project’s discussion here at the 
> ASF* 
> and for a mail summarizing
> that Twitter discussion to be moderated through within 12 hours, and
> for the PMC of an 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Mark Struberg]

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!

A few things really should FIRST get handled in private. This is the same 
regardless whether it's about board oversight or you as a PMC. 

An example is e.g. when we detect trademark violations. Or if ASF hosted pages 
make unfair advertisement for ONE of the involved contributors. In such cases 
the PMC (or board if the PMC doesn't act by itself) first tries to solve those 
issues _without_ breaking porcelain! Which means the respective person or 
company will get contacted in private and not immediately get hit by public 
shaming and blaming. In most cases it's just an oversight and too eager 
marketing people who don't understand the impact. Usually the problems quickly 
get resolved without anyone loosing it's face.


Oh, talking about the 'impact' and some people wondering why the ASF board is 
so pissed?
Well, the point is that in extremis the whole §501(c),3 (non-for-profit) status 
is at risk! Means if we allow a single vendor to create an unfair business 
benefit, then this might be interpreted as a profit making mechanism by the 
federal tax office...
This is one of the huge differences to some other OSS projects which are 
basically owned by one company or where companies simply can buy a seat in the 
board. 


LieGrue,
strub

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!


PPS: DataStax did a lot for Cassandra, but the public perception nowadays seems 
to be that DataStax donated Cassandra to the ASF. This is not true. It was 
created and contributed by Facebook 
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/Cassandramany years before DataStax was even 
founded



On Saturday, 5 November 2016, 13:12, Benedict Elliott Smith 
 wrote:
>
>I would hope the board would engage with criticism substantively, and that 
>"long emails" to boards@ would be responded to on their merit, without a 
>grassroots effort to apply pressure.
>
>
>In lieu of that, it is very hard for the community to "speak with one voice" 
>because we do not know what actions the board has undertaken.  This is at odds 
>with "The Apache Way" core tenet of Openness.
>
>
>The actions I have seen on the public fora by both Chris and Mark make me 
>doubt the actions in private were reasonable.
>
>
>
>I reiterate that the board should make all of its discussions about DataStax, 
>particularly those with the PMC-private list, public.  Otherwise the community 
>cannot perform the function you ask.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 5 November 2016 at 03:08, Ross Gardler  wrote:
>
>[In the mail below I try not to cast judgement, I do not know enough of the 
>background to have an opinion on this specific situation. My comments are in 
>response to the question “Where are the board's guidelines then, or do they 
>make it up as they go?”.]
>>
>>The boards guidelines are the Apache Way. This is a fluid thing that adapts 
>>to individual project needs but has a few common pillars in all projects, 
>>e.g. PMC is responsible for community health and PMC members are expected to 
>>act as individuals in the interest of the community. The board is empowered, 
>>by the ASF membership (individuals with merit) to take any action necessary 
>>to ensure a PMC is carrying out its duty.
>>
>>If a PMC is being ineffective then the board only has blunt instruments to 
>>work with. Their actions appear to cut deep because they have no scalpel with 
>>which to work. The scalpel should be in the hands of the PMC, but by 
>>definition if the board intervenes the PMC is failing to use the scalpel.
>>
>>So how do we identify appropriate action? Well I can tell you that any action 
>>of the board will result in more dissatisfied PMC members than satisfied 
>>ones. This is because, by definition, if the board are acting it is because 
>>the PMC is failing in its duty to build a vendor neutral and healthy 
>>community. The measure is whether the broader community feel that the board 
>>are acting in their best interests – including those who have not been given 
>>the privilege of merit (yes, PMC membership and committership is a privilege 
>>not a right).
>>
>>This is not to say the board are incapable of making a mistake. They are 9 
>>humans after all. However, I can assure you (based on painful experience) 
>>that getting 9 humans to agree to use a blunt instrument that will make a 
>>mess in the short term is extremely hard. That’s why we have a board of 9 
>>rather than 5 (or any other smaller number) it minimizes the chances of 
>>error. It’s also why the board is usually slower to move than one might 
>>expect.

Re: Broader community involvement in 4.0 (WAS Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0)

[Benedict Elliott Smith]

Hi Ed,

I would like to try and clear up what I perceive to be some
misunderstandings.

Aleksey is relating that for *complex* tickets there are desperately few
people with the expertise necessary to review them.  In some cases it can
amount to several weeks' work, possibly requiring multiple people, which is
a huge investment.  EPaxos is an example where its complexity likely needs
multiple highly qualified reviewers.

Simpler tickets on the other hand languish due to poor incentives - they
aren't sexy for volunteers, and aren't important for the corporately
sponsored contributors, who also have finite resources.  Nobody *wants* to
do them.

This does contribute to an emergent lack of diversity in the pool of
contributors, but it doesn't discount Aleksey's point.  We need to find a
way forward that handles both of these concerns.

Sponsored contributors have invested time into efforts to expand the
committer pool before, though they have universally failed.  Efforts like
the "low hanging fruit squad" seem like a good idea that might payoff, with
the only risk being the cloud hanging over the project right now.  I think
constructive engagement with potential sponsors is probably the way forward.

(As an aside, the policy on test coverage was historically very poor
indeed, but is I believe much stronger today - try not to judge current
behaviours on those of the past)


On 5 November 2016 at 00:05, Edward Capriolo  wrote:

> "I’m sure users running Cassandra in production would prefer actual proper
> reviews to non-review +1s."
>
> Again, you are implying that only you can do a proper job.
>
> Lets be specific here: You and I are working on this one:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10825
>
> Now, Ariel reported there was no/low code coverage. I went looking a the
> code and found a problem.
>
> If someone were to merge this: I would have more incentive to look for
> other things, then I might find more bugs and improvements. If this process
> keeps going, I would naturally get exposed to more of the code. Finally in
> maybe (I don't know in 10 or 20 years) I could become one of these
> specialists.
>
> Lets peal this situation apart:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10825
>
> "If you grep test/src and cassandra-dtest you will find that the string
> OverloadedException doesn't appear anywhere."
>
> Now let me flip this situation around:
>
> "I'm sure the users running Cassandra in production would prefer proper
> coding practice like writing unit and integration test to rubber stamp
> merges"
>
> When the shoe is on the other foot it does not feel so nice.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko 
> wrote:
>
> > Dunno. A sneaky correctness or data corruption bug. A performance
> > regression. Or something that can take a node/cluster down.
> >
> > Of course no process is bullet-proof. The purpose of review is to
> minimise
> > the odds of such a thing happening.
> >
> > I’m sure users running Cassandra in production would prefer actual proper
> > reviews to non-review +1s.
> >
> > --
> > AY
> >
> > On 4 November 2016 at 23:03:23, Edward Capriolo (edlinuxg...@gmail.com)
> > wrote:
> >
> > I feel that is really standing up on a soap box. What would be the worst
> > thing that happens here
>

DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Benedict Elliott Smith]

I would hope the board would engage with criticism substantively, and that
"long emails" to boards@ would be responded to on their merit, without a
grassroots effort to apply pressure.

In lieu of that, it is very hard for the community to "speak with one
voice" because
we do not know what actions the board has undertaken.  This is at odds with
"The Apache Way" core tenet of Openness.

The actions I have seen on the public fora by both Chris and Mark make me
doubt the actions in private were reasonable.

I reiterate that the board should make all of its discussions about
DataStax, particularly those with the PMC-private list, public.  Otherwise
the community cannot perform the function you ask.




On 5 November 2016 at 03:08, Ross Gardler 
wrote:

> [In the mail below I try not to cast judgement, I do not know enough of
> the background to have an opinion on this specific situation. My comments
> are in response to the question “Where are the board's guidelines then, or
> do they make it up as they go?”.]
>
> The boards guidelines are the Apache Way. This is a fluid thing that
> adapts to individual project needs but has a few common pillars in all
> projects, e.g. PMC is responsible for community health and PMC members are
> expected to act as individuals in the interest of the community. The board
> is empowered, by the ASF membership (individuals with merit) to take any
> action necessary to ensure a PMC is carrying out its duty.
>
> If a PMC is being ineffective then the board only has blunt instruments to
> work with. Their actions appear to cut deep because they have no scalpel
> with which to work. The scalpel should be in the hands of the PMC, but by
> definition if the board intervenes the PMC is failing to use the scalpel.
>
> So how do we identify appropriate action? Well I can tell you that any
> action of the board will result in more dissatisfied PMC members than
> satisfied ones. This is because, by definition, if the board are acting it
> is because the PMC is failing in its duty to build a vendor neutral and
> healthy community. The measure is whether the broader community feel that
> the board are acting in their best interests – including those who have not
> been given the privilege of merit (yes, PMC membership and committership is
> a privilege not a right).
>
> This is not to say the board are incapable of making a mistake. They are 9
> humans after all. However, I can assure you (based on painful experience)
> that getting 9 humans to agree to use a blunt instrument that will make a
> mess in the short term is extremely hard. That’s why we have a board of 9
> rather than 5 (or any other smaller number) it minimizes the chances of
> error. It’s also why the board is usually slower to move than one might
> expect.
>
> However, should the board make a mistake the correct action is to get the
> community as a whole to express their concern. Demonstrate that the
> community, as a whole, feels that the board acted inappropriately. Don’t
> waste time with long emails to board@. The people here trust in the
> process and the board. We don’t know what’s been happening inside your
> project, we don’t pass judgement. To make us care you must have your
> community speak with one voice. Demonstrate that you have consensus around
> your opinions. Then, and only then, will the membership - the people who
> vote for the board and hold them accountable – accept your argument that
> the board have acted inappropriately.
>
> Ross
>
> From: Benedict Elliott Smith [mailto:bened...@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 7:08 PM
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> Cc: Apache Board ; Łukasz Dywicki ;
> Chris Mattmann ; Kelly Sommers <
> kell.somm...@gmail.com>; Jim Jagielski 
> Subject: Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF
>
> Where are the board's guidelines then, or do they make it up as they go?
> Flame wars are a risk of every public forum and discussion, and doing
> everything in public is one of the tenets of the ASF.
>
> Jim Jagielski stated to me on twitter that a bare minimum of discussions
> happen in private, and did not list this as one of the exceptions, despite
> it being the context. His statement was inline with the link I provided,
> and he is a board member.  So ostensibly a board member agrees, at least in
> principle.
>
> Regardless, the issue in question is if the board was sufficiently hostile
> to DataStax for them to rationally and reasonably feel the correct course
> of action was to mitigate their business risk exposure to the ASF board. It
> seems to me that may well be the case, but we cannot know for sure because
> the board was doing it behind closed doors despite members of the board
> suggesting this isn't how things work.
>
> Given this inconsistency, and the fact that Mark Thomas (a board member)
> apparently hadn't even read the ASF guidelines before 

Re: Is there a way to do Read and Set at Cassandra level?

[DuyHai Doan]

"But then don't I need to evict for every batch of writes?"

Yes, that's why I think an in-memory distributed data structure is the good
fit for your scenario. Using a log structured merged tree like C* for this
use-case is not the most efficient choice

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Kant Kodali  wrote:

> But then don't I need to evict for every batch of writes? I thought cache
> would make sense when reads/writes > 1 per say. What do you think?
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 3:33 AM, DuyHai Doan  wrote:
>
>> "I have a requirement where I need to know last value that is written
>> successfully so I could read that value and do some computation and include
>> it in the subsequent write"
>>
>> Maybe keeping the last written value in a distributed cache is cheaper
>> than doing a read before write in Cassandra ?
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Kant Kodali  wrote:
>>
>>> I have a requirement where I need to know last value that is written
>>> successfully so I could read that value and do some computation and include
>>> it in the subsequent write. For now we are doing read before write which
>>> significantly degrades the performance. Light weight transactions are more
>>> of a compare and set than a Read and Set. The very first thing I tried is
>>> to see if I can eliminate this need by the application but looks like it is
>>> a strong requirement for us so I am wondering if there is any way I can
>>> optimize that? I know batching could help in the sense I can do one read
>>> for every batch so that the writes in the batch doesn't take a read
>>> performance hit but I wonder if there is any clever ideas or tricks I can
>>> do?
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: Is there a way to do Read and Set at Cassandra level?

[Kant Kodali]

But then don't I need to evict for every batch of writes? I thought cache
would make sense when reads/writes > 1 per say. What do you think?

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 3:33 AM, DuyHai Doan  wrote:

> "I have a requirement where I need to know last value that is written
> successfully so I could read that value and do some computation and include
> it in the subsequent write"
>
> Maybe keeping the last written value in a distributed cache is cheaper
> than doing a read before write in Cassandra ?
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Kant Kodali  wrote:
>
>> I have a requirement where I need to know last value that is written
>> successfully so I could read that value and do some computation and include
>> it in the subsequent write. For now we are doing read before write which
>> significantly degrades the performance. Light weight transactions are more
>> of a compare and set than a Read and Set. The very first thing I tried is
>> to see if I can eliminate this need by the application but looks like it is
>> a strong requirement for us so I am wondering if there is any way I can
>> optimize that? I know batching could help in the sense I can do one read
>> for every batch so that the writes in the batch doesn't take a read
>> performance hit but I wonder if there is any clever ideas or tricks I can
>> do?
>>
>
>

Re: Is there a way to do Read and Set at Cassandra level?

[DuyHai Doan]

"I have a requirement where I need to know last value that is written
successfully so I could read that value and do some computation and include
it in the subsequent write"

Maybe keeping the last written value in a distributed cache is cheaper than
doing a read before write in Cassandra ?

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Kant Kodali  wrote:

> I have a requirement where I need to know last value that is written
> successfully so I could read that value and do some computation and include
> it in the subsequent write. For now we are doing read before write which
> significantly degrades the performance. Light weight transactions are more
> of a compare and set than a Read and Set. The very first thing I tried is
> to see if I can eliminate this need by the application but looks like it is
> a strong requirement for us so I am wondering if there is any way I can
> optimize that? I know batching could help in the sense I can do one read
> for every batch so that the writes in the batch doesn't take a read
> performance hit but I wonder if there is any clever ideas or tricks I can
> do?
>

Is there a way to do Read and Set at Cassandra level?

[Kant Kodali]

I have a requirement where I need to know last value that is written
successfully so I could read that value and do some computation and include
it in the subsequent write. For now we are doing read before write which
significantly degrades the performance. Light weight transactions are more
of a compare and set than a Read and Set. The very first thing I tried is
to see if I can eliminate this need by the application but looks like it is
a strong requirement for us so I am wondering if there is any way I can
optimize that? I know batching could help in the sense I can do one read
for every batch so that the writes in the batch doesn't take a read
performance hit but I wonder if there is any clever ideas or tricks I can
do?