Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Jim Jagielski]

You are saying the the "nature of the communication as unnecessarily
antagonistic" and that I think it is necessary.

Neither of those are accurate. I do not characterize it
as "antagonistic" nor necessary.

> On Nov 6, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Jeffrey Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Everything you said is accurate, and I don¹t think anyone¹s debating that.
> What I¹m hoping to convey is the method of communication is such that a
> SIGNIFICANT number of people interpret the nature of the communication as
> unnecessarily antagonistic. You seem to think it¹s necessary, but the
> reaction of the community clearly says otherwise.
> 
> A person can be 100% right and still come across as a jerk, and the CoC
> instructs people to avoid doing so, because it¹s damaging to the
> community. 
> 
> If you ask 100 random people who are neither Cassandra users/developers
> nor ASF members about whether or not the communication from the ASF board
> members is in this thread is professional, empathetic, friendly, and
> likely to build a community, I suspect you¹d find a significant number
> that would tell you the communication is none of those things. And THAT is
> a problem, too (and it¹s NOT on the same level as mark issues, but if the
> question is ³why did Datastax step back from the Apache Cassandra
> project², it certainly helps explain why a company might want to do that).
> 
> Let¹s build a community, Jim.
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/6/16, 12:00 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
>> Some clarification.
>> 
>> Basically, there had been issues w/ DataStax and the PMC for a long,
>> long time. It came somewhat to a head in Aug when there was
>> a PR/Email about the "Cassandra Summit" with nary a mention
>> of Apache at all. None.
>> 
>> This was after months and months in trying to get DataStax to
>> honor our marks. It was this final culmination which which
>> resulted in a board member saying "makes me want to jettison".
>> At which Jonathan Ellis expressed confusion on what the problem
>> was and asking about the context, oblivious to the concern. Someone
>> else noted that both the PMC and Cassandra had been "lectured" on
>> trademark violations before and said that "one would assume that
>> someone learned along the way." Someone then wondered whether
>> these recurring issues where due to some fault in the PMC or
>> just the normal, expect churn of their being a brand. He
>> further stated: "I don't see how we can make it the responsibility
>> of the PMC to catch these things". It was then noted that the
>> CTO of DataStax is the PMC Chair, as well as co-founder. There
>> was then further discussions and "education" on mark guidelines,
>> again, with Jake and Aleksey. Aleksey, at least, admitted that
>> "If your only success criteria is how well trademark policing is
>> performed, then sure, we all failed..."
>> 
>> More discussion.
>> 
>> Around this time, one board member referred to below most certainly
>> did characterize the "hammer-time" phrase as "premature and
>> inflammatory". Others did not. To support that position I will add
>> some cut/paste quotes from another director:
>> 
>> o Overall, there are a handful of issues here but they look to be easily
>>   fixable and - with a little education - preventable in the future.
>> o Given the numbers and seniority of DataStax employees involved with
>>   Apache Cassandra it is disappointing that these errors are being made
>>   but people make mistakes
>> o The lack of proactive policing of trademarks by the Cassandra
>>   PMC is what concerns me
>> o Given the history, I do think the board needs to take some form of
>>   action. It has been suggested that the board remove all DataStax
>>   employees from the PMC. I agree things are heading in that direction
>> but
>>   I don't think we are there yet.
>> 
>> It was after that that someone mentioned that they were on 3 PMC
>> and never saw any mark issues with any PMCs other than
>> Cassandra (this was a not a director speaking). That is when I
>> replied w/ the "I've seen such issues..." response.
>> 
>> Some take-aways:
>> 
>> o Mark compliance issues have been ongoing for a long, long
>>  time.
>> o The PMC and its chair had been involved in these concerns
>>  for a long, long time.
>> 
>> Once all this was done, and this particular issue resolved. The final
>> few Emails on the thread close it off with:
>> 
>> o Nobody has 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Jim Jagielski]

Some clarification.

Basically, there had been issues w/ DataStax and the PMC for a long,
long time. It came somewhat to a head in Aug when there was
a PR/Email about the "Cassandra Summit" with nary a mention
of Apache at all. None.

This was after months and months in trying to get DataStax to
honor our marks. It was this final culmination which which
resulted in a board member saying "makes me want to jettison".
At which Jonathan Ellis expressed confusion on what the problem
was and asking about the context, oblivious to the concern. Someone
else noted that both the PMC and Cassandra had been "lectured" on
trademark violations before and said that "one would assume that
someone learned along the way." Someone then wondered whether
these recurring issues where due to some fault in the PMC or
just the normal, expect churn of their being a brand. He
further stated: "I don't see how we can make it the responsibility
of the PMC to catch these things". It was then noted that the
CTO of DataStax is the PMC Chair, as well as co-founder. There
was then further discussions and "education" on mark guidelines,
again, with Jake and Aleksey. Aleksey, at least, admitted that
"If your only success criteria is how well trademark policing is
performed, then sure, we all failed..."

More discussion.

Around this time, one board member referred to below most certainly
did characterize the "hammer-time" phrase as "premature and
inflammatory". Others did not. To support that position I will add
some cut/paste quotes from another director:

  o Overall, there are a handful of issues here but they look to be easily
fixable and - with a little education - preventable in the future.
  o Given the numbers and seniority of DataStax employees involved with
Apache Cassandra it is disappointing that these errors are being made
but people make mistakes
  o The lack of proactive policing of trademarks by the Cassandra
PMC is what concerns me
  o Given the history, I do think the board needs to take some form of
action. It has been suggested that the board remove all DataStax
employees from the PMC. I agree things are heading in that direction but
I don't think we are there yet.

It was after that that someone mentioned that they were on 3 PMC
and never saw any mark issues with any PMCs other than
Cassandra (this was a not a director speaking). That is when I
replied w/ the "I've seen such issues..." response.

Some take-aways:

 o Mark compliance issues have been ongoing for a long, long
   time.
 o The PMC and its chair had been involved in these concerns
   for a long, long time.

Once all this was done, and this particular issue resolved. The final
few Emails on the thread close it off with:

  o Nobody has said commit privs should be removed. Some have discussed the 
potential of removing PMC responsibilities
  o I would like to see some positive action from the Apache Cassandra PMC that 
they are working on managing this problem.
  o We all seem to agree that the responsibility for enforcement falls first to 
the PMC, then on VP Branding, and then on the President.

That is the saga of hammers.

> On Nov 6, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> 
> Now that I have clarity on what can and can't be relayed to the community / 
> dev@, I'm going to reply to this email, and then I suspect I'm done for 
> today, because I'd rather watch football than reply to this anymore.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Mark Struberg  
> wrote:
> Having a bit insight how the board operates (being PMC-chair for 2 other 
> TLPs) I can ensure you that the board did handle this very cleanly!
> 
> 
> I'm going to disagree with this, in a way I hope lets everyone see where 
> things went wrong, and more importantly, the path forward to fix them.
> 
> The board correctly identified that Datastax had a majority of the PMC and 
> could exert control.
> The board correctly identified that Datastax violated trademark policies 
> (multiple times).
> The board correctly identified that the PMC was not adequately policing 
> Datastax (or really anyone, there were plenty of trademark issues to go 
> around).
> 
> The board appears to have incorrectly attributed the lack of policing to the 
> fact that Datastax controlled the PMC. This is an honest mistake. The real 
> blame lies somewhere closer to a lack of understanding of responsibilities, 
> and a lack of visibility into what other parts of Datastax were doing.
> 
> It's clear I'm not alone in this conclusion - you seem to say the same thing:
>  
> 
> PS: I strongly believe that the technical people at DataStax really tried to 
> do their best but got out-maneuvered by their marketing and sales people. The 
> current step was just part of a clean separation btw a company and their OSS 
> contributions. It was legally necessary and also important for the overall 
> Cassandra community!
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, when faced with an 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Jim Jagielski]

And, as a reminder, this is my email in its entirety. Note
how when show in full, it is hardly the nefarious posting
one would have assumed from the small cutting shared so far.

"""

I've seen such issues come up before...

The problem is not, per se, that the issues pop up; it happens and
sometimes companies and their marketing/PR department just don't
grok how to use the Apache marks the way they should.

What IS a problem is when the PMC is lax in handling these issues
and especially when the company responsible also is "over-represented"
in the PMC itself.

In all cases, it is the company that is over-represented which should
be the leading, guiding example on how to do things right; they are
the company which should least likely have these issues and, when they
do pop up, be the most aggressive and active in getting these resolved.

Experience has shown that Datastax fails in these expectations very,
very frequently.

Now if the PMC cannot "reign in" Datastax, then the board will; but
the board's reaction will not be subtle. It will not be nuanced. The
board is a hammer, not a scalpel.

"""

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

[Jim Jagielski]

"well written, cogent and on-topic" ... "reasoned rebuttal"

You keep on using those words. I don't think they mean
what you think they do. Some data points:

  o " A lot of extra power, like it or not (I have a feeling you quite like it, 
though)."
  o "you are being hotheaded, impulsive, antagonising, and immature."
  o "in what possible universe"
  o "Frankly, it wouldn’t be appropriate for a greeter at Walmart"

So if the above warrants what you consider well-written, cogent,
on-topic and reasoned, then I fear that any further discussion
is really worthless.

o+o

> On Nov 6, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith  
> wrote:
> 
> Jim,
> 
> I would love it if you could take the time to explain how arrived at a 
> diagnosis of trolling.
> 
> Aleksey made a well written, cogent and on-topic criticism of your ongoing 
> behaviour, as well as a reasoned rebuttal of your absurd claim that your 
> power is inherent to you, not your position (I don't think many people know 
> who you are, only what you are).  
> 
> It was explicitly the topic of discussion, and there is mounting evidence of 
> your misbehaviour.  This is the very definition of discussion, not trolling.
> 
> Much like your "chess" comment, this appears to be an attempt to shut down 
> substantive discussion of your unsuitability for the role of board member.
> 

Re: Moderation

[Jim Jagielski]

If this is your attempt to accept Chris' explanation, even if
you don't agree with it, then you have not quite succeeded.

If instead, this is your attempt to continue to heap fuel on
a fire, and be just as aggressive as you paint others to be, then
you have done quite well.

I don't expect that others will be spending their time replying
to your messages anymore, at least on list.

> On Nov 6, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith  
> wrote:
> 
> In summary: you claim to be someone with years of experience at the forefront 
> of an organisation that conducts all of its business primarily over email.  
> In that time you have not learned to express yourself over email in a manner 
> that is not incendiary to those reading it, nor offensive to the intended 
> recipient.
> 
> That sounds to me like you are openly disclaiming your suitability for the 
> position of responsibility you currently hold.
> 

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

[Jim Jagielski]

Sorry that people took the reply as pompous... You are certainly
within your rights to take it anyway you want. It was not
meant that way.

In the same vein, I am within my rights to take responses
in the way I want, which I took as simple trolling. And
with trolls, as with thermonuclear war, the only "winning"
move is not to play.

> On Nov 5, 2016, at 9:25 PM, Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> 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 <dbros...@apache.org> 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 <alek...@apache.org> 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: 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?