Thanks Jeff for your thoughtful comments. +100
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 5, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> I hope the other 7 members of the board take note of this response,
> and other similar reactions on dev@ today.
> When Datastax violated trademark, they
I agree with Paul. Same boat, not a PMC / Datastax, just someone that cares
a lot about this community.
On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 3:04 PM paul cannon wrote:
> I'm not a stakeholder here- I don't know Russell, I don't work for
> Datastax, and I'm not a member of the ASF.
I hope the other 7 members of the board take note of this response,
and other similar reactions on dev@ today.
When Datastax violated trademark, they acknowledged it and worked to
correct it. To their credit, they tried to do the right thing.
When the PMC failed to enforce problems, we
I'm not a stakeholder here- I don't know Russell, I don't work for
Datastax, and I'm not a member of the ASF.
For what little it's probably worth since I haven't "been elected to have a
binding voice within the project", Russell's is exactly how I read the
message from Chris Mattmann. Whether or
I take this response (a second time) as a pompous way to trivialize the
responses of others as to the point of their points being meaningless to
you. So either explain what this means, or accept the fact that you are
as Chris is exactly what people are claiming you to be. Abnoxious
For the record, I never said anyone was attempting to make me “look bad”. I
simply stated that his method of argument was to discredit me. Below I will
break down his response, as I see it, and as others who have messaged me off
list see it as well:
“… You see I’ve been around since 2004 and
Dear Jeff and discussion participants,
Plase find my replies in line.
> From Jeff Jirsa w dniu 5 lis 2016, o godz. 17:37:
> The thesis of your pasted gist is that you tried to contribute and were
> pushed away. You hypothesize that it's done with lack of will to pull in
I’d say they are interwoven with inappropriate passages that should have never
and *all of them* came from ASF board members.
I feel like it would be in the interest of Apache Cassandra, and the greater
to expose the way the board treats its volunteer PMC and
On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> My first reaction to seeing this come in was to laugh - not because it's
> funny, but because the only other thing I could think to do was cry. You've
> misinterpreted or misunderstood almost everything in this post, and
On 11/04/2016 06:43 PM, Jeff Beck wrote:
> I run the local Cassandra User Group and I would love to help get the
> community more involved. I would propose holding a night to add patches to
> Cassandra some will be simple things like making sure some asserts have
> proper messages with them etc,
On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith
> Hi Ed,
> I would like to try and clear up what I perceive to be some
> Aleksey is relating that for *complex* tickets there are desperately few
> people with the expertise necessary to
On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith
> All I am demanding is that these "not public" actions be made
> "open" and public, inline with ASF ideals.
All of us on the Board feel very strongly about conversations happening in
public -- in harmony with
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...
My first reaction to seeing this come in was to laugh - not because it's
funny, but because the only other thing I could think to do was cry. You've
misinterpreted or misunderstood almost everything in this post, and instead
of reflecting on your side of the interaction, you've attributed the
Thanks Jeff, that was very well put.
I would quibble on one point, though: the ship has never sailed on topics
of community. How the board acts towards the PMC and companies in the
community matters a great deal for continuing relations, as well as for
The question is: did the
Ultimately it doesn't matter now. The project has a bright future with the
involvement of all individuals regardless of the company they work for. That's
the important thing.
> On Nov 5, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Jeremy Hanna wrote:
> No it wasn't. You're citing the
I'm going to attempt to give the most complete answer I can without posting
comments that were said with the expectation of privacy - it's not my place to
violate that expectation. Some things discussed here are things I wouldn't
typically mention in public (notably the topic of trademark
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
There is a nice guide now in the docs on how to contribute.
If you try it and find holes you can also help by contributing to those
On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Tyler Tolley
Just want to weigh in my 2 cents. I've been following the dev list for
quite a while and wanted to contribute. As I approached trying to handle
some lhf, I couldn't find any instructions on how to check out, build, test
or any guidance on coding standards and best practices. Maybe these existed
Which is what was done: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Cassandra.html
> 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:
Please note that, yes, at time, there are discussion between
the PMC and the board which are done either or the board@ list
or in "private" on private@.
This is between the board and the PMC, of course.
However, why does it fall to the *board* to then bring that
conversation to "the public".
I agree - thanks for sending it, Lukasz. I think we can use it as a great
learning opportunity - because nearly every point you made I find to be
factually and objectively wrong, and the fact that members of the ASF take it
at face value is part of the problem - poorly informed opinions on
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
How am I misunderstanding you? "not in public" == "private"
The ASF trumpets openness, and you are now apparently campaigning for the
opposite. All I am demanding is that these "not public" actions be made
"open" and public, inline with ASF ideals.
Ross indicated *this (Cassandra) community*
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
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
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
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!
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
I would like to try and clear up what I perceive to be some
Aleksey is relating that for *complex* tickets there are desperately few
people with the expertise necessary to review them. In some cases it can
amount to several weeks' work, possibly requiring multiple
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
we do not know what actions
"But then don't I need to evict for every batch of writes?"
Yes, that's why I think an in-memory distributed data structure is the good
fit for your scenario. Using a log structured merged tree like C* for this
use-case is not the most efficient choice
On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Kant
But then don't I need to evict for every batch of writes? I thought cache
would make sense when reads/writes > 1 per say. What do you think?
On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 3:33 AM, DuyHai Doan wrote:
> "I have a requirement where I need to know last value that is written
"I have a requirement where I need to know last value that is written
successfully so I could read that value and do some computation and include
it in the subsequent write"
Maybe keeping the last written value in a distributed cache is cheaper than
doing a read before write in Cassandra ?
I have a requirement where I need to know last value that is written
successfully so I could read that value and do some computation and include
it in the subsequent write. For now we are doing read before write which
significantly degrades the performance. Light weight transactions are more
Mail list logo