As long as Michael has been warned in the past, I vote for a three month ban with option of a reduced one month ban if he is willing to write an apology to Sean and the community.
> On Jul 1, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Shahab Yunus <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I am a very new here and also my contribution to the mailing list has been >> limited as well. I am not even a committer. But I have been following and >> reading the mailing list for a while. So given that, I am taking the >> liberty and chiming in my 2 cents. I don't profess or claim to read other >> people's mind or comment on how they truly are or be patronizing. These are >> just purely my subjective observations. No offense intended. >> >> > Part of why we have these discussions on the open lists instead of on a > committer-only or PMC-only list is that the open lists define the > community. There's no need to caveat your feedback; your voice in this > matters. > > > > >> I totally understand where Andrew Purtell and Stack are coming from and >> yes, Michael Segel has been in the past and in this particular email too, >> be quite rude and dismissive. Unnecessarily so. At the same time, he is >> clearly a smart guy when it comes to the topic of the mailing list. I also >> realize that being smart or intelligent in one's field or area does not >> give you a free pass to railroad or demean everyone else. But the thing is >> that I don't think Michael is just a mean or rude person. Quite a few >> times, he tries to temper his sarcastic barbs with a smiley and emoticons >> to lighten the effect. Especially if they are of the personal nature or in >> direct response to another poster (on the other hand he could be harsh when >> talking about design decisions in general). I also have a belief (blind >> faith as I of course have not met him, lol) that he is more than just a >> smart guy in this area but, in general a sensible individual too and this >> was mostly a misstep and the tone was not tempered at all(?) >> >> > Tempering attacks on individuals does not mitigate their inappropriateness. > Given that I agree that Michael is an intelligent person, there have been > too many times that Michael has directly attacked individuals for me to > believe it's a misstep. (I don't want this to become a review of terrible > emails, but frankly the insult towards me in this case was mild compared to > his past behavior i.e. towards Andrew.) > > There are lots of smart people in the world. HBase is lucky enough to have > quite a few of them in our community. Even if we didn't, there's no level > of insight that would excuse behaving poorly in the group. Community > Code > is the core of the ASF and one sarcastic genius can't be a community. > > > >> Lastly having said all that, as this has never happened before here on the >> list (if I remember correctly and as mentioned by Andrew), 'ban' is a >> pretty severe measure. Moderation is better in this regard. I have been >> moderating a totally unrelated web forum for few years now and things get >> pretty rowdy there (to put it mildly) and thus ban is not used that >> lightly, and in extreme cases. >> >> > Without implying anything about your referenced web forum (since I > obviously know nothing about it), in many cases spaces that are described > as "rowdy" or "no holds barred" are thin masks for harassment and abuse. I > do not want the HBase mailing lists to be described in those terms. I want > it to be described as "nice" or "friendly". I would love "spirited" so long > as it does not include "rude." There are plenty of folks who meet the > standard of "spirited" without crossing the line into "rude" already, so I > don't see why we need to err on the side of tolerating poor behavior. > > That said, I agree that banning is a severe measure. I hope we have enough > moderators that consensus can be reached for that approach. If not, I'm in > favor of a ban over not taking action. > > > >> Also, even if we don't want to moderate because of effort involved, why not >> go with a 'warning' system. Give 2 warnings and then on the third strike >> you are banned. Or start with temporary bans which could be extended after >> 2-3 strikes. >> > > We always, always need to start with warnings. Personally, I prefer to > include a pointer to the foundation code of conduct when letting someone > know they've crossed a line. But including a citation of the code of > conduct isn't strictly necessary and the warning need not come from a PMC > member nor even a committer. Michael has been warned several times, so I > don't think that's an issue here. > > -- > Sean
