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 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 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 <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi<mailt >>>>o:tom.bar...@meteorite.bi>> 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 won't answer directly for the board for #2, but I suspect the answer >>>>would be, Cassandra has been through the incubation phase, so the PMC >>>>should understand how the project should be run, its not the boards job to >>>>fix it directly. Did the board act unreasonably? I don't think so. Did some >>>>heated discussions take place? Undoubtedly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith >>>><bened...@apache.org<javascrip t:;> >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This discussion is bundling up two issues: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Did DataStax have an outsized role on the project which needed to be >>>>> offset, preferably with increased participation? >>>>> >>>>> 2) Did the Board behave reasonably in trying to fix it? >>>>> >>>>> As far as I can tell the answers are 1) Yes, 2) No >>>>> >>>>> Can the board please now unequivocally answer if they followed protocol >>>>> and kept all discussions around company involvement to public mailing >>>>> lists? >>>>> >>>>> https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc .html#mailing-list-private<htt >>>>> ps://na01.safelinks.protection .outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F% >>>>> 2Fwww.apache.org%2Fdev%2Fpmc.h tml%23mailing-list-private&dat >>>>> a=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40mic rosoft.com%7C5c04c4a66e0946fb5 >>>>> 76908d4052086e2%7C72f988bf86f1 41af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0% >>>>> 7C636139084643734494&sdata= OCEuwt1KWAv6e586vEixFLQfAJOWbL >>>>> pvb9kpKw9TwLI%3D&reserved=0> >>>>> >>>>> I'm certain they did not, and they cannot as a result claim to be >>>>> upholding ASF process and ideals. Similarly to how Mark Thomas recently >>>>> attempted to misapply ASF policies, when policing user mailing >>>>> list discussions. >>>>> >>>>> I originally supported the ASF efforts to improve the project. I have >>>>> since lost all faith in the board. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> On Saturday, 5 November 2016, Chris Mattmann >>>>> <mattm...@apache.org<javascrip t:;>> 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" <l...@code-house.org<javascrip >>>>>> t:;>> 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/splat ch/aebe4ad4d127922642bee0dc9a8 >>>>>> b1ec1<https://na01.safelinks.p rotection.outlook.com/?url=htt >>>>>> ps%3A%2F%2Fgist.github.com%2Fs platch%2Faebe4ad4d127922642bee >>>>>> 0dc9a8b1ec1&data=02%7C01%7CRos s.Gardler%40microsoft.com% >>>>>> 7C5c04c4a66e0946fb576908d40520 86e2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7 >>>>>> cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6361390846 43734494&sdata=fyu1vH6AUhkW% >>>>>> 2Bk%2FJmQhKsAH3kBmzxPXEs8bt161 SPXU%3D&reserved=0> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 that >>>>>> project was forked and maintained outside ASF (ie. stratio cassandra >>>>>> which >>>>>> eventually ended up as lucene indexes plugin over a year ago), some other >>>>>> did hurt users running cassandra for long time (ie. discontinuation of >>>>>> thrift). Especially second decission was seen by outsiders, who do not >>>>>> desire billion writes per second, as marketing driven. This led to people >>>>>> looking and finding alternatives using compatible interface which might >>>>>> be, >>>>>> ironically, even faster (ie. scylladb). >>>>>> >>>>>> And since there was quote battle on twitter between Jim Jagielski and >>>>>> Benedict, I can throw some in as well. Over conferences I attended and >>>>>> even >>>>>> during consultancy services I got, I’ve spoken with some people having >>>>>> records of DataStax in their resumes and even them told me "collaboration >>>>>> with them [cassandra team] was hard". Now imagine how outsider will get >>>>>> any >>>>>> chance to get any change done with such attitude shown even to own >>>>>> colleagues? Must also note that Tinkerpop is getting better on this field >>>>>> since it has much more generic nature. >>>>>> I don’t think this whole topic is to say that you (meaning DataStax) >>>>>> made wrong job, or you are doing wrong for project but about letting >>>>>> others >>>>>> join forces with you to make Cassandra even better. Maybe there is not a >>>>>> lot of people currently walking around but once you will welcome and help >>>>>> them working with you on code base you may be sure that others will join >>>>>> making your development efforts easier and shared across community. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> Lukasz >>>>>> >>>>>> > Wiadomość napisana przez Edward Capriolo >>>>>> <edlinuxg...@gmail.com<javascr ipt:;>> w >> >>>>>> dniu 4 lis 2016, o godz. 18:55: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Kelly Sommers < >>>>>> kell.somm...@gmail.com<javascr ipt:;>> >>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> I think the community needs some clarification about what's going >>>>>> on. >>>>>> >> There's a really concerning shift going on and the story about why >>>>>> is >>>>>> >> really blurry. I've heard all kinds of wild claims about what's >>>>>> going on. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I've heard people say the ASF is pushing DataStax out because they >>>>>> don't >>>>>> >> like how much control they have over Cassandra. I've heard other >>>>>> people say >>>>>> >> DataStax and the ASF aren't getting along. I've heard one person >>>>>> who has >>>>>> >> pull with a friend in the ASF complained about a feature not >>>>>> getting >>>>>> >> considered (who also didn't go down the correct path of proposing) >>>>>> kicked >>>>>> >> and screamed and started the ball rolling for control change. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I don't know what's going on, and I doubt the truth is in any of >>>>>> those, the >>>>>> >> truth is probably somewhere in between. As a former Cassandra MVP >>>>>> and >>>>>> >> builder of some of the larger Cassandra clusters in the last 3 >>>>>> years I'm >>>>>> >> concerned. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I've been really happy with Jonathan and DataStax's role in the >>>>>> Cassandra >>>>>> >> community. I think they have done a great job at investing time >>>>>> and money >>>>>> >> towards the good interest in the project. I think it is >>>>>> unavoidable a >>>>>> >> single company bootstraps large projects like this into >>>>>> popularity. It's >>>>>> >> those companies investments who give the ability to grow diversity >>>>>> in later >>>>>> >> stages. The committer list in my opinion is the most diverse its >>>>>> ever been, >>>>>> >> hasn't it? Apple is a big player now. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I don't think reducing DataStax's role for the sake of diversity >>>>>> is smart. >>>>>> >> You grow diversity by opening up new opportunities for others. >>>>>> Grow the >>>>>> >> committer list perhaps. Mentor new people to join that list. You >>>>>> don't kick >>>>>> >> someone to the curb and hope things improve. You add. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I may be way off on what I'm seeing but there's not much to go by >>>>>> but >>>>>> >> gossip (ahaha :P) and some ASF meeting notes and DataStax blog >>>>>> posts. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> August 17th 2016 ASF changed the Apache Cassandra chair >>>>>> >> https://www.apache.org/foundat ion/records/minutes/<https://n >>>>>> a01.safelinks.protection.outlo ok.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. >>>>>> apache.org%2Ffoundation%2Freco rds%2Fminutes%2F&data=02%7C01% >>>>>> 7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft. com%7C5c04c4a66e0946fb576908d4 >>>>>> 052086e2%7C72f988bf86f141af91a b2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0% >>>>>> 7C636139084643734494&sdata= tUnCACcUzARHCi4ZIz3nf3kUPSQkjK >>>>>> sZaCF96e3E5ac%3D&reserved=0> >>>>>> >> 2016/board_minutes_2016_08_17. txt >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> "The Board expressed continuing concern that the PMC was not >>>>>> acting >>>>>> >> independently and that one company had undue influence over the >>>>>> project." >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> August 19th 2016 Jonothan Ellis steps down as chair >>>>>> >> http://www.datastax.com/2016/0 8/a-look-back-a-look-forward<h >>>>>> ttps://na01.safelinks.protecti on.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F >>>>>> %2Fwww.datastax.com%2F2016%2F0 8%2Fa-look-back-a-look-forward >>>>>> &data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler% 40microsoft.com%7C5c04c4a66e09 >>>>>> 46fb576908d4052086e2%7C72f988b f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1% >>>>>> 7C0%7C636139084643734494& sdata=5De2ySsguPY381uaQyrS4UaD >>>>>> MI0am5rNZhn7YtaiwSs%3D&reserve d=0> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> November 2nd 2016 DataStax moves committers to DSE from Cassandra. >>>>>> >> http://www.datastax.com/2016/1 1/serving-customers-serving-th >>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protec tion.outlook.com/?url=http%3A% >>>>>> 2F%2Fwww.datastax.com%2F2016%2 F11%2Fserving-customers-servin >>>>>> g-th&data=02%7C01%7CRoss. Gardler%40microsoft.com% >>>>>> 7C5c04c4a66e0946fb576908d40520 86e2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7 >>>>>> cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6361390846 43734494&sdata=vqI4LOx%2Btpmgs >>>>>> mQMgLqRGeW3%2Fg0Q%2BeERrxqNkP1 jYb8%3D&reserved=0> >>>> >>>>>> e-community >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I'm really concerned if indeed the ASF is trying to change control >>>>>> and >>>>>> >> diversity of organizations by reducing DataStax's role. As I said >>>>>> earlier, >>>>>> >> I've been really happy at the direction DataStax and Jonathan has >>>>>> taken the >>>>>> >> project and I would much prefer see additional opportunities along >>>>>> side >>>>>> >> theirs grow instead of subtracting. The ultimate question that's >>>>>> really >>>>>> >> important is whether DataStax and Jonathan have been steering the >>>>>> project >>>>>> >> in the right direction. If the answer is yes, then is there really >>>>>> anything >>>>>> >> broken? Only if the answer is no should change happen, in my >>>>>> opinion. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Can someone at the ASF please clarify what is going on? The ASF >>>>>> meeting >>>>>> >> notes are very concerning. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Thank you for listening, >>>>>> >> Kelly Sommers >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Kelly, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Thank you for taking the time to mention this. I want to react to >>>>>> this >>>>>> > statement: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > "I've heard people say the ASF is pushing DataStax out because they >>>>>> don't >>>>>> > like how much control they have over Cassandra. I've heard other >>>>>> people say >>>>>> > DataStax and the ASF aren't getting along. I've heard one person >>>>>> who has >>>>>> > pull with a friend in the ASF complained about a feature not >>>>>> getting >>>>>> > considered (who also didn't go down the correct path of proposing) >>>>>> kicked >>>>>> > and screamed and started the ball rolling for control change." >>>>>> > >>>>>> > There is an important saying in the ASF: >>>>>> > https://community.apache.org/n ewbiefaq.html<https://na01.saf >>>>>> elinks.protection.outlook.com/ ?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.a >>>>>> pache.org%2Fnewbiefaq.html&dat a=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40mic >>>>>> rosoft.com%7C5c04c4a66e0946fb5 76908d4052086e2%7C72f988bf86f1 >>>>>> 41af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0% 7C636139084643734494&sdata= >>>>>> l5vVCp%2FEn4QFXIfnAFWGulr2J6ZD zAsS8jdVNyAT1%2F8%3D&reserved= 0> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > - If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > It is natural that communication happens outside of Jira. The rough >>>>>> aim of >>>>>> > this mandate is a conversation like that that happens by the water >>>>>> cooler >>>>>> > should be summarized and moved into a forum where it can be >>>>>> recorded and >>>>>> > discussed. There is a danger in repeating something anecdotal or >>>>>> 'things >>>>>> > you have heard'. If that party is being suppressed, that is an >>>>>> issue to >>>>>> > deal with. If a party is unwilling to speak for themselves publicly >>>>>> in the >>>>>> > ASF public forums that is on them. Retelling what others told us is >>>>>> > 'gossip' as you put it. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > "I think it is unavoidable a single company bootstraps large >>>>>> projects like >>>>>> > this into popularity" >>>>>> > "I don't think reducing DataStax's role for the sake of diversity >>>>>> is >>>>>> > smart." >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Let me state my opinion as an open source ASF member that was never >>>>>> > directly payed to work on an open source project. I have proposed >>>>>> and seen >>>>>> > proposed by others ideas to several open source projects inside >>>>>> (ASF and >>>>>> > outside) which were rejected. Later (months maybe years later) the >>>>>> exact >>>>>> > idea or roughly the same idea is implemented by different person in >>>>>> a >>>>>> > slightly different form. There is a lot of grey area there. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > How does that related to this >>>>>> http://www.datastax.com/2016/<https://na01.safelinks.protect >>>>>> ion.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2 F%2Fwww.datastax.com%2F2016%2F >>>>>> &data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler% 40microsoft.com%7C5c04c4a66e09 >>>>>> 46fb576908d4052086e2%7C72f988b f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1% >>>>>> 7C0%7C636139084643744506&sdata =6Pn5o6Abfuy84NltYW7CoTaRvUxss >>>>>> QO0d%2Bh9nq%2FpUMs%3D&reserved =0> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> > 11/serving-customers-serving-t he-community ? >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Remember the ASF is a volunteer organization. One desired effect of >>>>>> the >>>>>> > volunteerism is so that one single large company does not bootstrap >>>>>> or >>>>>> > control the project. (When my proposed ideas got knocked down, I >>>>>> had some >>>>>> > choices including complain to anyone that will listen, lick my >>>>>> wounds and >>>>>> > press on, or become less involved.) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Whatever event has happened has happened. Like you, I only know of >>>>>> it >>>>>> > second hand so I will not comment. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > The volunteer committers can decide their own level of involvement. >>>>>> For >>>>>> > example, they can "double down" and use their free time to stay >>>>>> > involved. They can attempt to convince their organization that >>>>>> pulling them >>>>>> > back is the wrong move, or they can fall away. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > " The ultimate question that's really important is whether DataStax >>>>>> and >>>>>> > Jonathan have been steering the project in the right direction" >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Outside of the politics/litigation it is becoming normal for an ASF >>>>>> project >>>>>> > to rotate the PMC chair. It keeps things fresh, and helps avoid >>>>>> issues >>>>>> > where some may perceive control by one person/entity. Your question >>>>>> may >>>>>> > ultimately highlight an issue as ASF sees it, namely who is >>>>>> "steering" you >>>>>> > mention a corporate entity in your question. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > >
