Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

2016-11-06 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
Hi,

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Jeremy Hanna  wrote:
> ...It is also apparently much more apparent in the private threads which 
> apparently
> the PMC can make public

I have not followed all discussions about this so sorry if you already
got this information from someone else.

Making private discussion threads public is *not* ok, unless everybody
who wrote something in those threads provides explicit permission to
do that. Which is usually not practical for a whole thread, but people
could give permission for specific parts.

Summarizing the relevant parts of a private thread to a public list
can be ok if you're cautious about not violating the private nature of
the original discussion. In case of doubt, ask on the private thread
before proceeding.

That's all common sense, I just wanted to clarify as there might be
some confusion around this now.

-Bertrand


Wiki edit

2016-11-06 Thread Vladimir Yudovin
Please add user winguzone to Wiki,



thanks



Best regards, Vladimir Yudovin, 

Winguzone - Hosted Cloud Cassandra
Launch your cluster in minutes.






Re: [VOTE] Close client-...@cassandra.apache.org mailing list

2016-11-06 Thread Gary Dusbabek
+1 let's close it.

Gary.


On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:

> There exists a nearly unused mailing list, client-...@cassandra.apache.org
> [0].
>
> This is a summary of the email threads over the past 12 months on that
> list:
>
> 1) ApacheCon Seville CFP Close notice
> 2) Datastax .NET driver question
> 3) Datastax Java driver question
> 4) FOSDEM announce
> 5) ApacheCon NA CFP Open noticed
>
> In order to avoid confusion, and given the lack of relevant and
> appropriate traffic, I propose we close the client-dev@ list entirely.
> Any traffic appropriate for the client-dev@ list would likely be better
> served if it were directed at dev@, which is more active.
>
> This vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>
> 0: https://lists.apache.org/list.html?client-...@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
>


[VOTE] Close client-...@cassandra.apache.org mailing list

2016-11-06 Thread Jeff Jirsa
There exists a nearly unused mailing list, client-...@cassandra.apache.org [0]. 

This is a summary of the email threads over the past 12 months on that list:

1) ApacheCon Seville CFP Close notice
2) Datastax .NET driver question 
3) Datastax Java driver question
4) FOSDEM announce
5) ApacheCon NA CFP Open noticed

In order to avoid confusion, and given the lack of relevant and appropriate 
traffic, I propose we close the client-dev@ list entirely. Any traffic 
appropriate for the client-dev@ list would likely be better served if it were 
directed at dev@, which is more active.

This vote will remain open for 72 hours. 

0: https://lists.apache.org/list.html?client-...@cassandra.apache.org




[GitHub] cassandra pull request #79: Correct Spelling Errors in JavaDoc for IEndPoint...

2016-11-06 Thread michaelsembwever
Github user michaelsembwever commented on a diff in the pull request:

https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/79#discussion_r86710443
  
--- Diff: src/java/org/apache/cassandra/locator/IEndpointSnitch.java ---
@@ -30,12 +30,12 @@
 public interface IEndpointSnitch
 {
 /**
- * returns a String repesenting the rack this endpoint belongs to
+ * returns a String representing the rack this endpoint belongs to
  */
 public String getRack(InetAddress endpoint);
 
 /**
- * returns a String representing the datacenter this endpoint belongs 
to
+ * returns a String representing the data center this endpoint belongs 
to
--- End diff --

I don't think this is warranted.
 `datacenter` is the more popular term within the repository than `data 
center`

```
cassandra-git (trunk) $ find . -type f -exec grep -l "datacenter" {} \; | 
wc -l
98
cassandra-git (trunk) $ find . -type f -exec grep -l "data center" {} \; | 
wc -l
56
```



---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---


[GitHub] cassandra pull request #79: Correct Spelling Errors in JavaDoc for IEndPoint...

2016-11-06 Thread michaelsembwever
Github user michaelsembwever commented on a diff in the pull request:

https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/79#discussion_r86710377
  
--- Diff: src/java/org/apache/cassandra/locator/IEndpointSnitch.java ---
@@ -30,12 +30,12 @@
 public interface IEndpointSnitch
 {
 /**
- * returns a String repesenting the rack this endpoint belongs to
+ * returns a String representing the rack this endpoint belongs to
--- End diff --

Thanks for spotting and patching this!


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---


Re: Broader community involvement in 4.0 (WAS Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0)

2016-11-06 Thread Dave Lester
Hi Ben,

A few ideas to add to your suggestions [inline]:

On 2016-11-06 13:51 (-0800), Ben Slater  wrote: 
> Hi All,
> 
> I thought I would add a couple of observations and suggestions as someone
> who has both personally made my first contributions to the project in the
> last few months and someone in a leadership role in an organisation
> (Instaclustr) that is feeling it’s way through increasing our contributions
> as an organisation.
> 
> Firstly - an observation on contribution experience and what I think is
> likely to make people want to contribute again:
> 1) The worst thing that can happen is for your contribution to be
> completely ignored.
> 2) The second worst thing is for it to be rejected without a good
> explanation (that you can learn from) or with hostility.
> 3) Having it rejected with a good reason is not a bad thing (you learn)
> 4) Having it accepted is, of course, the best!
> 
> With this as a background I would suggest a couple of thing that help make
> sure (3) and (4) are always more common that (1) and (2) (good outcomes are
> probably more common than bad at the moment but we’ve experienced all four
> scenarios in the last few months):
> 1) I think some process of assigning a committer of a “sponsor” of a 
> change
> (which would probably mean committers volunteering) before it commences
> would be useful. You can kind of do this at the moment by creating a JIRA
> and asking for comment but I think the process is a bit unclear and a bit
> intimidating for people starting off and it would be nice to know who was
> your primary reviewer for a piece of work. (Or maybe this process does
> exist and I don’t know about.)

I've seen this approach before and it that can reduce ambiguity on the state of 
contributions; the Apache Mesos project has a shepherding system similar to 
this. I would shy away from the term "sponsor" since it could infer a 
non-voluntary relationship between contributors and volunteer committers.

>From the Mesos docs: "Find a shepherd to collaborate on your patch. A shepherd 
>is a Mesos committer that will work with you to give you feedback on your 
>proposed design, and to eventually commit your change into the Mesos source 
>tree." More info on how they approach this is in both their newbie guide: 
>http://mesos.apache.org/documentation/newbie-guide/, and submitting a patch 
>guide: http://mesos.apache.org/documentation/latest/submitting-a-patch/.

In practice, there are some limitations and risks to this model. For one, a 
shepherding process is not a substitute for the Apache Way, and it's critical 
that design decisions and reviews are still done in the open. Additionally, in 
projects where a single organization has disproportionate representation at the 
committer level it can create bottlenecks if features are a lower priority for 
those orgs (while not malicious, it may mean that certain patches are 
shepherded while others are ignored). It's possible to work within these 
limitations, especially in cases where the community is having healthy 
conversations about the direction and roadmap for the project (similar to the 
original thread).

If this is something the project would like to push forward, I'd suggest a 
committer vote to ensure there's sufficient buy-in.

> 2) I think the “how to contribute” docs could emphasise activities other
> than creating new features as a great place to start.It seems that review,
> testing and doco could all do with more hands (as on just about any
> project). So, encouraging this as a way to start on the project might help
> to get some more bandwidth in this area rather than people creating patches
> that the committers don’t have bandwidth to review. I would be happy to
> draft an update to the docs including some of this if people think it’s a
> good idea.

This would be great. If you make changes here and create a JIRA ticket 
associated with it, please add me to the ticket and I'll happily provide 
feedback.

Dave

> 
> Cheers
> Ben
> 
> On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 at 06:40 Michael Shuler  wrote:
> 
> > 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, but some may be slightly larger. The goal
> > > being to just get people used to the process, to help make this a success
> > > it would be great if we could have support on getting the patches we
> > submit
> > > at least looked at briefly in 1 month. That timeframe allows us to talk
> > > about it at the next meetup and show people their contributions even
> > small
> > > ones are valued.
> >
> > This is a great idea and I have a suggestion that would benefit the
> > project as a whole, as well as help new people get used to the
> > 

Re: Broader community involvement in 4.0 (WAS Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0)

2016-11-06 Thread Nate McCall
Ben,
Thank you for providing two thoughtful, concrete recommendations.
There is some good feedback in general on this thread, but I'm calling
Ben's response out because point #1 is important to discuss and point
#2 is immediately actionable.

> 1) I think some process of assigning a committer of a “sponsor” of a change
> (which would probably mean committers volunteering) before it commences
> would be useful. You can kind of do this at the moment by creating a JIRA
> and asking for comment but I think the process is a bit unclear and a bit
> intimidating for people starting off and it would be nice to know who was
> your primary reviewer for a piece of work. (Or maybe this process does
> exist and I don’t know about.)

This is a good idea, but it assumes a single point triage and resource
management that we don't really have right now.

For the history of the project, we had triage in the form of sponsored
resources flighting most of the new issues. This has made the rest of
us complacent. It's probably the most immediate thing to fix and I
don't know how to do that.

Does anybody have any recommendations about ASF projects doing this
effectively? Note that the folks from DS engineering are still heavily
involved and I very much thank them for that, but diversifying is the
only way to get us over our complacency.

> 2) I think the “how to contribute” docs could emphasise activities other
> than creating new features as a great place to start.It seems that review,
> testing and doco could all do with more hands (as on just about any
> project). So, encouraging this as a way to start on the project might help
> to get some more bandwidth in this area rather than people creating patches
> that the committers don’t have bandwidth to review. I would be happy to
> draft an update to the docs including some of this if people think it’s a
> good idea.

Also a good idea and much more accessible/easily fixable.

We will gladly look at any doc updates for this, looping in the
broader community once published (this last part being key - I'm
afraid if we ask for help too early, we'll get tons of interest to
which we cannot reply and then be in even worse shape).

-Nate


Re: Broader community involvement in 4.0 (WAS Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0)

2016-11-06 Thread Ben Slater
Hi All,

I thought I would add a couple of observations and suggestions as someone
who has both personally made my first contributions to the project in the
last few months and someone in a leadership role in an organisation
(Instaclustr) that is feeling it’s way through increasing our contributions
as an organisation.

Firstly - an observation on contribution experience and what I think is
likely to make people want to contribute again:
1) The worst thing that can happen is for your contribution to be
completely ignored.
2) The second worst thing is for it to be rejected without a good
explanation (that you can learn from) or with hostility.
3) Having it rejected with a good reason is not a bad thing (you learn)
4) Having it accepted is, of course, the best!

With this as a background I would suggest a couple of thing that help make
sure (3) and (4) are always more common that (1) and (2) (good outcomes are
probably more common than bad at the moment but we’ve experienced all four
scenarios in the last few months):
1) I think some process of assigning a committer of a “sponsor” of a change
(which would probably mean committers volunteering) before it commences
would be useful. You can kind of do this at the moment by creating a JIRA
and asking for comment but I think the process is a bit unclear and a bit
intimidating for people starting off and it would be nice to know who was
your primary reviewer for a piece of work. (Or maybe this process does
exist and I don’t know about.)
2) I think the “how to contribute” docs could emphasise activities other
than creating new features as a great place to start.It seems that review,
testing and doco could all do with more hands (as on just about any
project). So, encouraging this as a way to start on the project might help
to get some more bandwidth in this area rather than people creating patches
that the committers don’t have bandwidth to review. I would be happy to
draft an update to the docs including some of this if people think it’s a
good idea.

Cheers
Ben

On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 at 06:40 Michael Shuler  wrote:

> 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, but some may be slightly larger. The goal
> > being to just get people used to the process, to help make this a success
> > it would be great if we could have support on getting the patches we
> submit
> > at least looked at briefly in 1 month. That timeframe allows us to talk
> > about it at the next meetup and show people their contributions even
> small
> > ones are valued.
>
> This is a great idea and I have a suggestion that would benefit the
> project as a whole, as well as help new people get used to the
> development process:
>
>   Document the process.
>
> Recently, the project included documentation in the source tree under
> `doc/`, which is directly presented at
> https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/latest/
>
> The red bar at the top has a link to contributions, there are docs about
> getting started with development, reviewing patches, and testing. If
> those docs need updating for better readability, missing steps, hints
> for new contributors, etc. I think this could be one of the most
> valuable contributions a user group could make, as well as provide some
> initial experience in the development process itself.
>
> > Before we did this night I would probably dig through some tickets and
> get
> > an example list going and any feedback notes on making the process easier
> > would be great.
>
> Some more ideas:
> The user group members could get themselves set up in JIRA in order to
> review one another's patches, get a feel for testing patches, go through
> the motions of *how* to contribute improvements, and again, get
> documentation change patches up in JIRA, so everyone benefits from your
> experiences, as the group works through the process.
>
> > Generally if there is anything you need from the meetups ask I know I
> will
> > do my best to get the local group to support things.
>
> Thanks for the interest!
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Michael
>


Re: Review of Cassandra actions

2016-11-06 Thread Mark Thomas
For the sake of clarity I am a member of the ASF board but I am not
speaking on behalf of the board in this email.

On 06/11/2016 01:25, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> I hope the other 7 members of the board take note of this response,
> and other similar reactions on dev@ today.

I can't speak for all seven other board members but I can say that I am
monitoring this thread and the related threads (although I haven't
looked at Twitter where a lot of this seems to have originated). It is
apparent to me that a number of the other directors are monitoring these
threads too.

> 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 acknowledged it and worked
> to correct it. We aren't perfect, but we're trying.

I think you are being a little hard on the PMC there. There was scope
for both parties to do better in a number of areas.

I do agree that things in the PMC have improved and are heading in the
right direction (with some more work still to do), as I hope I made
clear in the summary section of the review e-mail I wrote (privately) to
the PMC a few weeks ago.

> When a few members the board openly violate the code of conduct, being
> condescending and disrespectful under the auspices of "enforcing the
> rules" and "protecting the community", they're breaking the rules,
> damaging the community, and nobody seems willing to acknowledge it or
> work to correct it. It's not isolated, I'll link examples if it's
> useful.

I take it you mean "nobody on the board seems willing...". Again, I
can't speak for the other board members but let me try and explain my
own thinking.

A number of posts from a variety of authors on this topic in recent days
have fallen short of the standard expected on an Apache list. Trying to
correct that without causing the situation to escalate is hard. The last
thing I want to do is add fuel to the fire. I've started to draft a
couple of emails at various points over the weekend only to find by the
time I'm happy(ish) with the draft, the thread has moved on and I need
to start again.

Alongside this I had hoped that things would have slowed down enough
over the weekend to give everyone time to reflect, recognise where they
might need to apologise and aim to start this coming week on a more
positive footing. There have been signs of this which I take to be
encouraging. Moving forward I'd encourage everyone to pause and review
what they have just written with the Code of Conduct in mind before
pressing send.

> In a time when we're all trying to do the right thing to protect the
> project and the community, it's unfortunate that high ranking, long
> time members within the ASF actively work to undermine trust and
> community while flaunting the code of conduct, which requires
> friendliness, empathy, and professionalism, and the rest of the board
> is silent on the matter.

Your calm responses and efforts to inform the community are appreciated.
It is not an easy task and kudos to you for taking it on.

As as been said several times in recent days, board members are rarely
speaking on behalf of the board (i.e. representing the agreed position
of the board). It is unusual enough that when we do we'll make it
explicit. One of the reasons for that is that getting 9 volunteers with
day jobs in widely distributed timezones to reach an agreed position on
anything takes time. Based on what I have seen so far, I am expecting
there to be a response from the board to this series of threads but I'm
not expecting to be especially quick.

Mark


DataStax and Cassandra

2016-11-06 Thread Jonathan Ellis
Hi all,

There’s been some conversation and some acrimony kicked up by my recent
blog post here
.
I appreciate the conversation and regret the acrimony!

Fundamentally I was trying to convey two complementary messages:


   1.

   DataStax wants to see Apache Cassandra thrive and will continue to
   contribute in multiple ways to make that happen, but at the same time
   2.

   DataStax will be placing more emphasis on DSE and more engineering
   effort behind it.


It’s unfortunate that the timing here coincides with some regrettable
actions by the Apache Board of Directors, but this change in emphasis is
primarily driven by business factors unrelated to the ASF.  DataStax shares
Apache’s commitment to community-led development independent of any single
vendor.

One friend pointed out to me that any vagueness can be interpreted as
“weasel words” and turned into alarmist conjectures as to what this really
means.  I gave several specifics in the post as to how DataStax will
continue to contribute to Apache Cassandra, but maybe I can simplify things:

This has been going on for months.  DataStax’s level of contribution moving
forward will be nearly indistinguishable from our level in October and
September.  If that was no cause for alarm then, I hope it will not be
cause for alarm now that we have articulated how we are moving forward.

To be explicit: DataStax engineers will continue to contribute code
reviews, bug fixes, and selected new features to Apache Cassandra.  In a
qualitative sense then, you could almost say that nothing has changed.

On a personal note, I’d like to thank those in this weekend’s threads who
have tried to de-escalate tensions rather than inflame them.  Jeff Jirsa’s
diplomacy stands out to me as particularly mature.

As has been said before, we’re all on the same team here.  Now let’s get
back to making Apache Cassandra the best open source distributed database
in the world!

-- 
Jonathan Ellis
co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
@spyced


Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

2016-11-06 Thread Jim Jagielski
You are saying the the "nature of the communication as unnecessarily
antagonistic" and that I think it is necessary.

Neither of those are accurate. I do not characterize it
as "antagonistic" nor necessary.

> On Nov 6, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Jeffrey Jirsa  wrote:
> 
> 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"  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  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Now that I have clarity on what can and can't be relayed to the
>>> community / dev@, I'm going 

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

2016-11-06 Thread Mark Struberg
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  
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  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  
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

2016-11-06 Thread Jeffrey Jirsa
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"  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  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
>> 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 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

2016-11-06 Thread Jim Jagielski
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  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  
> 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 

Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

2016-11-06 Thread Jim Jagielski
And, as a reminder, this is my email in its entirety. Note
how when show in full, it is hardly the nefarious posting
one would have assumed from the small cutting shared so far.

"""

I've seen such issues come up before...

The problem is not, per se, that the issues pop up; it happens and
sometimes companies and their marketing/PR department just don't
grok how to use the Apache marks the way they should.

What IS a problem is when the PMC is lax in handling these issues
and especially when the company responsible also is "over-represented"
in the PMC itself.

In all cases, it is the company that is over-represented which should
be the leading, guiding example on how to do things right; they are
the company which should least likely have these issues and, when they
do pop up, be the most aggressive and active in getting these resolved.

Experience has shown that Datastax fails in these expectations very,
very frequently.

Now if the PMC cannot "reign in" Datastax, then the board will; but
the board's reaction will not be subtle. It will not be nuanced. The
board is a hammer, not a scalpel.

"""


Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF

2016-11-06 Thread Jeff Jirsa
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 
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 

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

2016-11-06 Thread Benedict Elliott Smith
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 bigger
problems."

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  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 
> 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.
> >
>
>


Re: Moderation

2016-11-06 Thread Benedict Elliott Smith
It was nothing but an expression of my belief that Chris' excuses for his
inappropriate behaviour were wholly inadequate.

This is not an isolated incident; it is a pattern of behaviour, and excuses
do not cut it.  Anything less than a wholesale acceptance of
inappropriateness, retraction, and commitment not to repeat this kind of
behaviour in future is insufficient.

Unlike you, I have no power, only words to express my disappointment in you
both.


On 6 November 2016 at 17:26, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

> If this is your attempt to accept Chris' explanation, even if
> you don't agree with it, then you have not quite succeeded.
>
> If instead, this is your attempt to continue to heap fuel on
> a fire, and be just as aggressive as you paint others to be, then
> you have done quite well.
>
> I don't expect that others will be spending their time replying
> to your messages anymore, at least on list.
>
> > On Nov 6, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith 
> wrote:
> >
> > In summary: you claim to be someone with years of experience at the
> forefront of an organisation that conducts all of its business primarily
> over email.  In that time you have not learned to express yourself over
> email in a manner that is not incendiary to those reading it, nor offensive
> to the intended recipient.
> >
> > That sounds to me like you are openly disclaiming your suitability for
> the position of responsibility you currently hold.
> >
>
>


Re: Review of Cassandra actions

2016-11-06 Thread Jim Jagielski
"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  
> 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.
> 



Re: Moderation

2016-11-06 Thread Jim Jagielski
If this is your attempt to accept Chris' explanation, even if
you don't agree with it, then you have not quite succeeded.

If instead, this is your attempt to continue to heap fuel on
a fire, and be just as aggressive as you paint others to be, then
you have done quite well.

I don't expect that others will be spending their time replying
to your messages anymore, at least on list.

> On Nov 6, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith  
> wrote:
> 
> In summary: you claim to be someone with years of experience at the forefront 
> of an organisation that conducts all of its business primarily over email.  
> In that time you have not learned to express yourself over email in a manner 
> that is not incendiary to those reading it, nor offensive to the intended 
> recipient.
> 
> That sounds to me like you are openly disclaiming your suitability for the 
> position of responsibility you currently hold.
> 



Re: Moderation

2016-11-06 Thread Jeffrey Jirsa
PMC member is a committer by default (in the past, we’ve had difficulty
electing a member to the PMC without giving them commit access, so
electing a member to the PMC without granting them commit access is at the
very least nontrivial)

The process is the same for all top level projects - the PMC itself
nominates and elects new members. The current PMC is listed here:
https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?cassandra , if you’re curious
about who can nominate at this time.

Because it’s driven by nominations at the PMC level, the process is the
same, but the actual qualities that lead to a nomination likely vary
project to project. Ed mentioned that in Hive, they’ve had members on the
PMC that were primarily contributors to docs or had a single meaningful
change to the build system. That’s a project-by-project decision, but
generally, a diverse PMC helps ensure diversity in the community and helps
drive outside contributions, so diversity is encouraged.

Looking at the roster, most of the current PMC members were
nominated/elected because they’re active committers with deep internal
knowledge and a history of contributing, some are nominated/elected
because they’re active within the ASF and help us guide the project (I
like to imagine I was nominated in part due to past contributions, but
also my familiarity with the greater non-Datastax Cassandra community).



On 11/6/16, 9:22 AM, "Jonathan Haddad"  wrote:

>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 

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

2016-11-06 Thread Benedict Elliott Smith
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.



On 6 November 2016 at 13:01, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

> Sorry that people took the reply as pompous... You are certainly
> within your rights to take it anyway you want. It was not
> meant that way.
>
> In the same vein, I am within my rights to take responses
> in the way I want, which I took as simple trolling. And
> with trolls, as with thermonuclear war, the only "winning"
> move is not to play.
>
> > On Nov 5, 2016, at 9:25 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 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 acknowledged it and worked
> > to correct it. We aren't perfect, but we're trying.
> >
> > When a few members the board openly violate the code of conduct, being
> > condescending and disrespectful under the auspices of "enforcing the
> > rules" and "protecting the community", they're breaking the rules,
> > damaging the community, and nobody seems willing to acknowledge it or
> > work to correct it. It's not isolated, I'll link examples if it's
> > useful.
> >
> > In a time when we're all trying to do the right thing to protect the
> > project and the community, it's unfortunate that high ranking, long
> > time members within the ASF actively work to undermine trust and
> > community while flaunting the code of conduct, which requires
> > friendliness, empathy, and professionalism, and the rest of the board
> > is silent on the matter.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Nov 5, 2016, at 4:08 PM, Dave Brosius  wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 bullies more
> interested in throwing your weight around and causing havoc, destroying a
> community, rather than actually being motivated by improving the ASF.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 11/05/2016 06:16 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>> How about a nice game of chess?
> >>>
>  On Nov 5, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko 
> wrote:
> 
>  I’m sorry, but this statement is so at odds with common sense that I
> have to call it out.
> 
>  Of course your position grants your voice extra power. A lot of extra
> power,
>  like it or not (I have a feeling you quite like it, though).
> 
>  In an ideal world, that power would entail corresponding duties:
>  care and consideration in your actions at least.
>  Instead, you are being hotheaded, impulsive, antagonising, and
> immature.
> 
>  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?
> 
>  That kind of behaviour is inappropriate for a board member. Frankly,
> it wouldn’t be
>  appropriate for a greeter at Walmart. If you don’t see this, we do
> indeed have bigger
>  problems.
> 
>  --
>  AY
> 
>  On 5 November 2016 at 14:57:13, Jim Jagielski (j...@jagunet.com)
> wrote:
> 
> >> But I love the ability of VP's and Board to simply pretend their
> positions carried no weight.
> >>
> > I would submit that whatever "weight" someone's position may
> > carry, it is due to *who* they are, and not *what* they are.
> >
> > If we have people here in the ASF or in PMCs which really think
> > that titles manner in discussions like this, when one is NOT
> > speaking ex cathedra, then we have bigger problems. :)
> >>>
> >>
>
>


Re: Moderation

2016-11-06 Thread Jonathan Haddad
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 the mail the prior night.
> 4. So of course I checked (after having already guessed it was stuck
> in moderation) and yes it
> was. What ensued was both frustration by my part and also email
> conversation that was heated
> on both sides. I felt swiped on by a few emails where I had good
> intentions but I felt we were
> wasting time debating whether we *should* moderate something through –
> which to me was
> a clear answer (yes). Where I failed there was to recognize that the
> real answer was that the Apache
> Cassandra PMC did not have enough moderators and the people I was
> mostly going back and forth
> with were not the moderators of the mailing lists.
> 5. One positive thing that came from #4 was that at least there are
> more moderators now. I’m not sure
> the reason for the lack of geographically diverse 

Re: Moderation

2016-11-06 Thread Benedict Elliott Smith
In summary: you claim to be someone with years of experience at the
forefront of an organisation that conducts all of its business primarily
over email.  In that time you have not learned to express yourself over
email in a manner that is not incendiary to those reading it, nor offensive
to the intended recipient.

That sounds to me like you are openly disclaiming your suitability for the
position of responsibility you currently hold.

On 6 November 2016 at 14:53, 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 the mail the prior night.
> 4. So of course I checked (after having already guessed it was stuck in
> moderation) and yes it
> was. What ensued was both frustration by my part and also email
> conversation that was heated
> on both sides. I felt swiped on by a few emails where I had good
> intentions but I felt we were
> wasting time debating whether we *should* moderate something through –
> which to me was
> a clear answer (yes). Where I failed there was to recognize that the real
> answer was that the Apache
> Cassandra PMC did not have enough moderators and the people I was mostly
> going back and forth
> with were not the moderators of the mailing lists.
> 5. One positive thing that came from #4 was that at least there are more
> moderators now. I’m not sure
> the reason for the lack of geographically diverse moderators, but it’s
> definitely something the PMC should
> check from time to time. Not pointing fingers, simply identifying
> responsibility.
>
> In my emails I used the word “shi*t” and “f’ing”. I didn’t direct either
> of these words at anyone in particular.
> I used them as color in expressing my frustration. It happens from time to
> time. Sorry.
>
> 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.
>
> Russell and I have never met in person so he does not really know me and
> nor I him. So he doesn’t know some of
> these nuances that people would normally know having met each other in
> mediums besides email or electronically.
> Many of you do not know me either. I will conclude with saying that I
> realize many of the people here for 

Re: Moderation

2016-11-06 Thread Chris Mattmann
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 the mail the prior night. 
4. So of course I checked (after having already guessed it was stuck in 
moderation) and yes it
was. What ensued was both frustration by my part and also email 
conversation that was heated
on both sides. I felt swiped on by a few emails where I had good intentions 
but I felt we were 
wasting time debating whether we *should* moderate something through – 
which to me was
a clear answer (yes). Where I failed there was to recognize that the real 
answer was that the Apache
Cassandra PMC did not have enough moderators and the people I was mostly 
going back and forth
with were not the moderators of the mailing lists. 
5. One positive thing that came from #4 was that at least there are more 
moderators now. I’m not sure
the reason for the lack of geographically diverse moderators, but it’s 
definitely something the PMC should
check from time to time. Not pointing fingers, simply identifying 
responsibility. 

In my emails I used the word “shi*t” and “f’ing”. I didn’t direct either of 
these words at anyone in particular.
I used them as color in expressing my frustration. It happens from time to 
time. Sorry. 

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 

Re: Moderation

2016-11-06 Thread Chris Mattmann
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 the mail the prior night. 
4. So of course I checked (after having already guessed it was stuck in 
moderation) and yes it
was. What ensued was both frustration by my part and also email conversation 
that was heated
on both sides. I felt swiped on by a few emails where I had good intentions but 
I felt we were 
wasting time debating whether we *should* moderate something through – which to 
me was
a clear answer (yes). Where I failed there was to recognize that the real 
answer was that the Apache
Cassandra PMC did not have enough moderators and the people I was mostly going 
back and forth
with were not the moderators of the mailing lists. 
5. One positive thing that came from #4 was that at least there are more 
moderators now. I’m not sure
the reason for the lack of geographically diverse moderators, but it’s 
definitely something the PMC should
check from time to time. Not pointing fingers, simply identifying 
responsibility. 

In my emails I used the word “shi*t” and “f’ing”. I didn’t direct either of 
these words at anyone in particular.
I used them as color in expressing my frustration. It happens from time to 
time. Sorry. 

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. 

Russell and I have never met in person so he does not really know me and nor I 
him. So he doesn’t know some of
these nuances that people would normally know having met each other in mediums 
besides email or electronically.
Many of you do not know me either. I will conclude with saying that I realize 
many of the people here for Apache
Cassandra have the best intentions for the project at heart. Please realize I 
do too. I care about the ASF and projects
and it leads me to send TL;DR emails and/or to use passion in my words. That 
can lead to frustration and to other
emotions. 

Thanks for listening. 

Cheers,
Chris



On 11/5/16, 3:16 PM, "Russell Bradberry"  wrote:

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 

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

2016-11-06 Thread Jim Jagielski
Sorry that people took the reply as pompous... You are certainly
within your rights to take it anyway you want. It was not
meant that way.

In the same vein, I am within my rights to take responses
in the way I want, which I took as simple trolling. And
with trolls, as with thermonuclear war, the only "winning"
move is not to play.

> On Nov 5, 2016, at 9:25 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 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 acknowledged it and worked
> to correct it. We aren't perfect, but we're trying.
> 
> When a few members the board openly violate the code of conduct, being
> condescending and disrespectful under the auspices of "enforcing the
> rules" and "protecting the community", they're breaking the rules,
> damaging the community, and nobody seems willing to acknowledge it or
> work to correct it. It's not isolated, I'll link examples if it's
> useful.
> 
> In a time when we're all trying to do the right thing to protect the
> project and the community, it's unfortunate that high ranking, long
> time members within the ASF actively work to undermine trust and
> community while flaunting the code of conduct, which requires
> friendliness, empathy, and professionalism, and the rest of the board
> is silent on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 5, 2016, at 4:08 PM, Dave Brosius  wrote:
>> 
>> 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 bullies more 
>> interested in throwing your weight around and causing havoc, destroying a 
>> community, rather than actually being motivated by improving the ASF.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 11/05/2016 06:16 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> How about a nice game of chess?
>>> 
 On Nov 5, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko  wrote:
 
 I’m sorry, but this statement is so at odds with common sense that I have 
 to call it out.
 
 Of course your position grants your voice extra power. A lot of extra 
 power,
 like it or not (I have a feeling you quite like it, though).
 
 In an ideal world, that power would entail corresponding duties:
 care and consideration in your actions at least.
 Instead, you are being hotheaded, impulsive, antagonising, and immature.
 
 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?
 
 That kind of behaviour is inappropriate for a board member. Frankly, it 
 wouldn’t be
 appropriate for a greeter at Walmart. If you don’t see this, we do indeed 
 have bigger
 problems.
 
 --
 AY
 
 On 5 November 2016 at 14:57:13, Jim Jagielski (j...@jagunet.com) wrote:
 
>> But I love the ability of VP's and Board to simply pretend their 
>> positions carried no weight.
>> 
> I would submit that whatever "weight" someone's position may
> carry, it is due to *who* they are, and not *what* they are.
> 
> If we have people here in the ASF or in PMCs which really think
> that titles manner in discussions like this, when one is NOT
> speaking ex cathedra, then we have bigger problems. :)
>>> 
>>