Re: Review of Cassandra actions

On 07/11/2016 10:52, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Thanks, that was a calm and diplomatic email. > > recognise where they might need to apologise > > > I will start the ball rolling here, as I have not always been generous in > my interpretations of others' actions, and have

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: > 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 >

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

Hi Mark, Thanks, that was a calm and diplomatic email. recognise where they might need to apologise I will start the ball rolling here, as I have not always been generous in my interpretations of others' actions, and have certainly contributed to escalation. But I wonder if you would also

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

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

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

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

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

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

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

"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,

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

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

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

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

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

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

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

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

Re: Review of Cassandra actions

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