Re: Review of Cassandra actions

[Mark Struberg]

Benedict, you ride the 'bla said blub', bääh.. since at least 5 replies. 

Yes the discussion was heated on both sides. But Chris didn't say anything 
since many posts. And his reply was sharp but really not totally personal. Can 
we now come back to a more technical discussion again please?

Some board members tried to explain what they think went wrong. (And 'they' is 
not a single person but a pretty big group of people). This got dealt with by 
the board and the Cassandra PMC since months (the first mails I can find are 
from February). Recently very positive work has been done by both DataStax 
(cleaner separation of Cassandra as community project and their company. Also 
_many_ trademark fixes have been applied) and the overall PMC (many new PMC 
members from other companies got voted in).


But all that only after the nice words got followed by sanctions. To be honest 
I've not seen a project where people are around for 3 years, have over 500 good 
commits and STILL did not get invited to become a PMC member. That is usually a 
very alarming sign. And I've seen other PMCs acting as 'owner' of a project and 
'defending' their influence in the past. But that is not what the ASF wants! We 
aim for real community projects and not benevolent dictatorship. PS, those 
other projecs got 'fixed' as well...



LieGrue,
strub



On Sunday, 6 November 2016, 18:45, Benedict Elliott Smith  
wrote:
>
>You've cherry picked, as usual.  
>
>
>"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?"
>
>
>"In an ideal world, that power would entail corresponding duties:care and 
>consideration in your actions at least."
>
>
>"That kind of behaviour is inappropriate for a board member... If you don’t 
>see this, we do indeed have biggerproblems."
>
>
>You seem to suffer from double standards, in the wrong direction.  Far more 
>offensive language from a board member is completely justifiable by nothing by 
>frustration.  From somebody wronged by a board member, however, an expression 
>of their experience with far less incendiary language is completely 
>inexcusable, and obviates the rest of a message.
>
>
>
>
>
>On 6 November 2016 at 17:33, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>
>"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: 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 
<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 <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> wrote:
>
>Having a bit insight how the board operates (being PMC-chair for 2 other TLPs) 
>I can ensure you that the board did handle this very cleanly!
>>
>>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 <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> 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 th

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.