You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cassandra.apache.org by Dave Brosius <db...@apache.org> on 2016/11/05 23:08:22 UTC
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 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 <al...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I\u2019m 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 \u201920% off\u201d 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\u2019t be
>> appropriate for a greeter at Walmart. If you don\u2019t see this, we do indeed have bigger
>> problems.
>>
>> --
>> AY
>>
>> On 5 November 2016 at 14:57:13, Jim Jagielski (jim@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: Review of Cassandra actions
Posted by Michael Kjellman <mk...@internalcircle.com>.
Thanks Jeff for your thoughtful comments. +100
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 5, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> 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 <db...@apache.org> 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 <al...@apache.org> 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 (jim@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: Review of Cassandra actions
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
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 certainly contributed to
> escalation.
>
> But I wonder if you would also help get the ball rolling; your reasonable
> tone gives me hope that you can. The topic for me has been: can board
> members recognise publicly where they have misstepped. Doing so provides
> assurances to the whole ASF community that the board can be trusted.
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/user@cassandra.apache.org/msg48692.html
>
> In this email chain not long ago, you attempted to apply a misreading of
> the ASF guidelines to non-ASF individuals. When I pointed this out, you
> went silent. In that chain, as now, I had a righteous indignation that no
> doubt inflamed the topic, and could have resolved the issue with more
> diplomacy. I'm also sure you had excellent intentions.
>
> Nevertheless, you did misstep as a board member by quite badly misapplying
> the guidelines. With no public recognition of this, I was left with an
> impression of unaccountability; I don't know how others responded.
Benedict,
First of all, let me explain why I didn't respond. That particular
sub-thread had all the indications that it was heading towards the same
sort of heated, unproductive, negative discussion that has been observed
recently on this list. I wanted to avoid that. It is possible that the
tone could have been turned around with the right e-mail but writing
those e-mails takes time that I didn't have. I therefore took the option
to simply ignore your email. It might not have been the perfect choice
but it did mean that the heated discussion was avoided and I had more
time for other ASF things, both inside Apache Cassandra and outside.
Clearly you are unhappy about how you view my actions in that thread. I
believe that that is primarily due to a misunderstanding. Let me try and
correct that by providing more explanation and context. I could have,
and with hindsight should have, provided that explanation and context at
the time. Had I done so, I think the misunderstanding could have been
avoided. Consider that a lesson learned.
One of the topics at the August board meeting was the continuing
concerns that had been raised with the board (from various sources both
within the project and externally) regarding Apache Cassandra. There was
a generally productive discussion between the board and the PMC members
who attended the meeting and one of the points made by the PMC was that,
while they agreed that there were issues, they were unsure what they
could/should be doing to address them. The PMC asked if the board could
provide a set of concrete actions it expected from the PMC. As a board
member who had not been directly involved in Cassandra to that point, I
volunteered to review the various threads discussing the concerns, put
together the list of actions and provide the Cassandra PMC with a point
of contact if they had any questions or concerns as they worked through
those actions. I provided the list to the PMC towards the end of August.
Around the same time I subscribed to all of the Apache Cassandra mailing
lists. This was primarily to monitor the PMC's progress with their actions.
One of the things I quickly noticed was that many users required
additional resources (reference docs, how to guides, components, tools)
over and above that provided directly by the project. While
individually, none of these resources gave cause for concern,
collectively, I was left with a perception of the project not being as
firmly rooted at the ASF as it could/should be.
Getting to the thread in question, it resonated with the perception I
had of the project not being firmly rooted at the ASF. A user was being
directed to 3rd party docs rather than the official Apache Cassandra
docs and it appeared that the official docs were better (more up to date
/ complete).
I did not intend to suggest Ryan was trying to do anything but help a
user. My intention was to try and understand why/how it had happened
with a view to improving things going forward. If I left Ryan in
particular or anyone else with the impression that I thought Ryan was
somehow at fault, I apologise. I did not then, and do not now, think
Ryan did anything wrong.
Ryan's explanation made perfect sense. I still think it is worth the
project looking at whether there is any SEO tuning that can be done to
improve the search ranking of cassandra.a.o for "CQL" (and any other
terms relevant to the project). I say this because other Apache projects
I have been involved have been able to improve their search ranking with
various web-site tweaks. I don't know enough about SEO to know if those
tweaks would help Cassandra.
I would have pursued this more at the time but I read the second
paragraph of the response to my SEO enquiry as antagonistic and
therefore, for the reasons I outlined above, I opted to ignore it.
Re-reading that response with the benefit of a little distance, the
second paragraph could just as easily be read as humorous. As of this
moment I genuinely have no idea which was intended but I'm going to go
with humorous.
The other sub-thread that this spawned is the one you linked above. My
understanding is that you view my response as saying that Ryan's e-mail
was against ASF policy and he should have known better. I can see how
you reached that conclusion but that wasn't what I was trying to say. I
could have and should have been clearer and I apologise for the
misunderstanding caused.
The point I was trying to make was that the motivation behind me asking
the original question was driven by The Apache Way / ASF Policy and not
personal opinion about what communities should and should not do.
Taken in isolation, I had no issue with the e-mail from an ASF policy
perspective. Taken in combination with all the other threads I had read
on the Apache Cassandra mailing lists, I was concerned (and still am)
about the perception I got of the project not being fully rooted at the
ASF. Or to put it another way, the perception that the project is not as
independent of external entities as it should be. This relates directly
to the concept of project independence that I linked to.
The community using links to external docs in preference to the project
hosted docs was one of the symptoms I was observing around the
perception of insufficient independence. I wanted to understand how it
had come about to see if there was something concrete that the PMC could
do to reduce the instances of this happening and thereby reduce one of
the factors giving rise to the perception that the project was not
sufficiently independent.
I think it would have been better if I had started a new thread (with
some background) to discuss the general issue rather than following up
on the thread that happened to be in front of me when the concern
crystallised. I think that would have helped decouple the original
thread from my general concern. The separation was clear in my mind but
I obviously didn't do enough to make that clear to others. Consider that
another lesson learned.
I hope this e-mail helps address the concerns you have.
Mark
Re: Review of Cassandra actions
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
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 help get the ball rolling; your reasonable
tone gives me hope that you can. The topic for me has been: can board
members recognise publicly where they have misstepped. Doing so provides
assurances to the whole ASF community that the board can be trusted.
https://www.mail-archive.com/user@cassandra.apache.org/msg48692.html
In this email chain not long ago, you attempted to apply a misreading of
the ASF guidelines to non-ASF individuals. When I pointed this out, you
went silent. In that chain, as now, I had a righteous indignation that no
doubt inflamed the topic, and could have resolved the issue with more
diplomacy. I'm also sure you had excellent intentions.
Nevertheless, you did misstep as a board member by quite badly misapplying
the guidelines. With no public recognition of this, I was left with an
impression of unaccountability; I don't know how others responded.
I think it would be fantastic if board members, as people in positions of
authority, lead by example and began recognising where their public
behaviour has missed the mark. Perhaps that would promote those in less
lofty positions to begin doing the same, and greater trust all round.
On 6 November 2016 at 21:42, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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
>
Re: Review of Cassandra actions
Posted by Eric Evans <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> 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
> 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.
Thank you for this Mark.
And while we're at it, thank you for all of your input these past
weeks. It's been incredibly helpful and constructive.
--
Eric Evans
john.eric.evans@gmail.com
Re: Review of Cassandra actions
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
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
Re: Review of Cassandra actions
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
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 <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>You've cherry picked, as usual.
>
>
>"In what possible universe dropping that hammer threat from the ’20% off” email thread,then following up with a Game of Thrones youtube clip is alright?"
>
>
>"In an ideal world, that power would entail corresponding duties:care and consideration in your actions at least."
>
>
>"That kind of behaviour is inappropriate for a board member... If you don’t see this, we do indeed have biggerproblems."
>
>
>You seem to suffer from double standards, in the wrong direction. Far more offensive language from a board member is completely justifiable by nothing by frustration. From somebody wronged by a board member, however, an expression of their experience with far less incendiary language is completely inexcusable, and obviates the rest of a message.
>
>
>
>
>
>On 6 November 2016 at 17:33, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>"well written, cogent and on-topic" ... "reasoned rebuttal"
>>
>>You keep on using those words. I don't think they mean
>>what you think they do. Some data points:
>>
>> o " A lot of extra power, like it or not (I have a feeling you quite like it, though)."
>> o "you are being hotheaded, impulsive, antagonising, and immature."
>> o "in what possible universe"
>> o "Frankly, it wouldn’t be appropriate for a greeter at Walmart"
>>
>>So if the above warrants what you consider well-written, cogent,
>>on-topic and reasoned, then I fear that any further discussion
>>is really worthless.
>>
>>o+o
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 6, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jim,
>>>
>>> I would love it if you could take the time to explain how arrived at a diagnosis of trolling.
>>>
>>> Aleksey made a well written, cogent and on-topic criticism of your ongoing behaviour, as well as a reasoned rebuttal of your absurd claim that your power is inherent to you, not your position (I don't think many people know who you are, only what you are).
>>>
>>> It was explicitly the topic of discussion, and there is mounting evidence of your misbehaviour. This is the very definition of discussion, not trolling.
>>>
>>> Much like your "chess" comment, this appears to be an attempt to shut down substantive discussion of your unsuitability for the role of board member.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Review of Cassandra actions
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
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 <https://twitter.com/jimjag/status/794616571079626753>.
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 <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> "well written, cogent and on-topic" ... "reasoned rebuttal"
>
> You keep on using those words. I don't think they mean
> what you think they do. Some data points:
>
> o " A lot of extra power, like it or not (I have a feeling you quite
> like it, though)."
> o "you are being hotheaded, impulsive, antagonising, and immature."
> o "in what possible universe"
> o "Frankly, it wouldn’t be appropriate for a greeter at Walmart"
>
> So if the above warrants what you consider well-written, cogent,
> on-topic and reasoned, then I fear that any further discussion
> is really worthless.
>
> o+o
>
> > On Nov 6, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > I would love it if you could take the time to explain how arrived at a
> diagnosis of trolling.
> >
> > Aleksey made a well written, cogent and on-topic criticism of your
> ongoing behaviour, as well as a reasoned rebuttal of your absurd claim that
> your power is inherent to you, not your position (I don't think many people
> know who you are, only what you are).
> >
> > It was explicitly the topic of discussion, and there is mounting
> evidence of your misbehaviour. This is the very definition of discussion,
> not trolling.
> >
> > Much like your "chess" comment, this appears to be an attempt to shut
> down substantive discussion of your unsuitability for the role of board
> member.
> >
>
>
Re: Review of Cassandra actions
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
"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 <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> I would love it if you could take the time to explain how arrived at a diagnosis of trolling.
>
> Aleksey made a well written, cogent and on-topic criticism of your ongoing behaviour, as well as a reasoned rebuttal of your absurd claim that your power is inherent to you, not your position (I don't think many people know who you are, only what you are).
>
> It was explicitly the topic of discussion, and there is mounting evidence of your misbehaviour. This is the very definition of discussion, not trolling.
>
> Much like your "chess" comment, this appears to be an attempt to shut down substantive discussion of your unsuitability for the role of board member.
>
Re: Review of Cassandra actions
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
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 <ji...@jagunet.com> 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 <jj...@gmail.com> 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 <db...@apache.org> 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 <al...@apache.org>
> 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 (jim@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: Review of Cassandra actions
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
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 <jj...@gmail.com> 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 <db...@apache.org> 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 <al...@apache.org> 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 (jim@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: Review of Cassandra actions
Posted by Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>.
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 <db...@apache.org> 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 <al...@apache.org> 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 (jim@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. :)
>>
>