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 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 <jji...@gmail.com> 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 >><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! >> >> >> 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 example of a trademark issue, there >>were two very senior members who replied with very hostile, >>unprofessional responses. One forwarded the example to board@ and >>private@ with a blanket statement about wanting to "jettison every >>single Datastax employee from the Apache Cassandra PMC". Another replied >>with "hammer time?", and youtube links to Game of Thrones clips were >>sent. One member of the board (properly, in my opinion) noted that their >>reactions were premature and inflammatory. Other members of the ASF >>noted (correctly) that in any sufficiently large organization, it takes >>process and time to make sure marketing is aware of policies, and the >>fact that no such process exists isn't cause to jettison the PMC, but it >>should be something that is corrected. >> >> What didn't happen, though, was any admission or acknowledgement that >>the premature and inflammatory behavior was wrong on the part of the >>very senior, very vocal folks that said it. Instead, they've continued >>making inflammatory comments - often because problems continue to happen >>where they need to be involved, but the tone is such that it's very easy >>to interpret it as hostile, which makes it very difficult to keep peace >>in the community. >> >> It's often said that when the board acts, they act as a sledgehammer >>because they have no scalpel. That's true, but the board never actually >>swung the sledgehammer - they threatened it, but they never needed to >>jettison every Datastax employee from the PMC, because the Datastax >>employees actively worked in good faith to correct problems. Sometimes >>that work was insufficient, and sometimes the PMC as a whole is less >>responsive than we should be (because many of us are still learning). We >>(the PMC) have been fairly open about acknowleding our shortcomings, and >>working to correct them. >> >> Unfortunately, while there was acknowledgement from the board that the >>PMC acted to correct problems (visible in the minutes, we're TRYING to >>do better), there's never been an acknowledgement that members of the >>board acted inappropriately - there was, at most, a single statement >>that it was out of frustration (which appears to be a >>half-acknowledgement that it may be out of line, but nowhere near an >>apology for being out of line). >> >> I can't speak for Datastax, but if I were in their shoes, and someone >>threatened to jettison me from the PMC for something I had no prior >>knowledge of, and then continued to act in an aggressive manner without >>ever acknowledging that they, too, were wrong, I would also distance >>myself from that group - not a "take my ball and go home" mentality, but >>a "these people act in ways that I don't understand, they seem overly >>hostile, and I should protect myself from them". What's frustrating is >>that it appears, in many ways, that basic empathy and professionalism on >>the part of the ASF board members could have potentially prevented this >>situation entirely. I suspect that members of the ASF who believe the >>board handled this cleanly re-evaluate that assertion, and ask >>themselves whether board members acted with empathy, friendliness, and >>professionalism in their communication with Datastax. >> >> If the members of the board take that recommendation to heart, and >>re-read threads on private@ in an objective manner, and agree with my >>assertion that they have room for improvement as well, I encourage both >>the board and Datastax management to reconsider their decisions made in >>the past few months, for the sake of the community. >> >> Because that's why we're all here - the community. >> >
