Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Ross Gardler]

Again. If the PMC fails to bring board (and trademark) feedback to the 
community it is not a failing of the board. Board minutes are available. Review 
comments and actions over the last 12 months or so.

---
Twitter: @rgardler


From: Jeremy Hanna 
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2016 8:30:20 AM
To: Jim Jagielski
Cc: dev@cassandra.apache.org; Łukasz Dywicki; Chris Mattmann; Kelly Sommers; 
Apache Board
Subject: Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwhimsy.apache.org%2Fboard%2Fminutes%2FCassandra.html=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7Ca198e6c0a658409b0b8208d406e21b78%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636141015575977801=xL7B%2F1xNDCfgnZ2pvTnuuhZWIymllsNV1Z0WNghuot4%3D=0
>
>> 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mail-archive.com%2Fdev%40cassandra.apache.org%2Fmsg09101.html=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7Ca198e6c0a658409b0b8208d406e21b78%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636141015575977801=tvQacSr5ikOC8wgxR6iD2QdtqEYc13rjiA977Ic6FNM%3D=0
>>   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: Moderation

[Ross Gardler]

Because of the way we are structured from an operations point of view or is 
necessary to have s commit bit to be a PMC member. However, that doesn't mean 
one needs to commit code.

A good PMC member looks after the health of the community. They do not 
necessarily write code. We have foundation members who have never committed a 
line of code.

Ross

---
Twitter: @rgardler

_
From: Jonathan Haddad >
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: Moderation
To: >, 
>


I took a look at 
https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html,
 and it doesn't seem to give any guidelines on who should be on the PMC.  My 
assumption has always been the most active committers become PMC members, but 
it sounds like that's not the case on other projects.  Is the process to be 
added to the PMC supposed to be the same everywhere, or is it up to the 
project?  Can you be on the PMC but not have commit access?

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 5:04 AM Chris Mattmann 
> wrote:
Sorry one typo below:

Where I said:

“The Cassandra MVP comment was also not a diss on you as much as it was me 
saying – ideally – I would hope that
the Apache Cassandra MVP people promote the concept of their community leaders 
becoming “ASF members”,
and that Cassandra MVPs are great – but secondary – to the responsibilities of 
the PMC to move towards ensuring
its community understands the Apache Way.”

I meant to say:

“The Cassandra MVP comment was also not a diss on you as much as it was me 
saying – ideally – I would hope that
the Apache Cassandra *PMC* people promote the concept of their community 
leaders becoming “ASF members”,
and that Cassandra MVPs are great – but secondary – to the responsibilities of 
the PMC to move towards ensuring
its community understands the Apache Way.”

Thanks.

Cheers,
Chris


On 11/6/16, 6:53 AM, "Chris Mattmann" 
> wrote:

For the record, your breakdown of the email trying to decipher what I meant 
is not
correct. It’s not your fault, but email doesn’t convey tone, nor do you 
know what I am
thinking or what I was trying to say. In fact, I was actually saying the 
PMC wasn’t doing its job,
because (as I stated to you months ago), you (and many other community 
members of
Cassandra) *should* have a binding vote. It wasn’t discrediting to you to 
point out that
you don’t have the PMC or committer credentials; it was an example trying 
to point out
that you *should* have them. And that you clearly care about the project as 
I believe you
have developed a book on the subject of Apache Cassandra a while back IIRC 
which in Tika,
Nutch, OODT, and a number of other projects would have earned you the 
ability to have a
direct say in those Apache projects. And a lot of others.

It’s these systematic fracturing of the community under the guise of a 
single vendor who
has stated that they care about Cassandra (note the omission of Apache), 
but by demonstration
has shown they either don’t understand, or don’t care about the Apache part 
of the equation.
That’s what caused me to become frustrated when the following sequence of 
events
happened:

1. After the Board meeting Mark Thomas one of our Directors took point on 
engaging
the Apache Cassandra PMC with some of the concerns brought up over the past 
6
months and the role I was filling there became a back seat for me.
2. I saw over the past few days on a Twitter feed retweeted by an ASF 
member that
Kelly Sommers (whom I have never met in person and do not know previously) 
was asking
questions and stating negative things about the ASF that I believed could 
be much better
understood by bringing them here to the ASF mailing lists for Apache 
Cassandra. I suggested
on Twitter that she bring her concerns to the Apache lists and told her 
which email address
to send it to. Some of the same people that eventually came onto the thread 
were people
who were communicating with her on Twitter – this was disappointing as they 
could have
done the same thing, and suggested Kelly come to the lists, Apache 
Cassandra PMC or not.
3. After 12 hours I checked back with Kelly and the Twitter dialogue had 
continued with several
ASF members and even some Board members getting involved. Again, I asked 
Kelly why talk
there, and why not just talk to the email list which is the canonical home 
for Apache Cassandra?
She told me she sent 

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 <bened...@apache.org>
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 <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 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 <bo...@apache.org>; Łukasz Dywicki <l...@code-house.org>; 
Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org>; Kelly Sommers <kell.somm...@gmail.com>; 
Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>
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

RE: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

[Ross Gardler]

[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 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 wantonly enforcing them, 
and the composure of Chris, as pointed out by Russel, I think it is reasonable 
to doubt the boards' credibility entirely.

So, I'm asking for clarity.  Preferably, a complete publication of the 
discussions that happened in private on the topic.







On Saturday, 5 November 2016, Tom Barber 
> wrote:
You know you've linked to a PMC page, when the board isn't a PMC? For
example, board member a, thinks project X isn't doing things correctly and
their first course of action is to post notes on a public development
mailing list? You'd have arguments and flame wars left right and centre.

Having watched the discussion unfolding, whilst some discussion clearly
went on on a private mailing list, the details pertinent to the PMC  were
made available and I believe they were CC'd pretty regularly.

I