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 <bened...@apache.org> 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 <j...@jagunet.com> 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 <bened...@apache.org> >>> 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. >>> >> >> > > >
