How am I misunderstanding you? "not in public" == "private"
The ASF trumpets openness, and you are now apparently campaigning for the opposite. All I am demanding is that these "not public" actions be made "open" and public, inline with ASF ideals. Ross indicated *this (Cassandra) community* needed to judge if the board acted appropriately. Several members of the community, myself included, believe from the information we have that they may not have done. If the board cannot be open about its actions, what are we as a community - whose views the ASF claims to value - to infer? On 5 November 2016 at 14:29, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> wrote: > You don't understand what I tried to say it seems: those actions HAVE been > extensively discussed with both DataStax representatives and the Cassandra > PMC since a LONG time. Just not in public. So this is nothing which just > boiled up the last month - this really got pointed out amicably by the > board for a LONG time before _finally_ they took actions! > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > On Saturday, 5 November 2016, 14:42, Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org> wrote: > >Whether or not the actions should have been "FIRST" taken in private, > this is now a retrospective where we provide oversight for the overseers. > > > > > > > >I reiterate again that all discussions and actions undertaken should be > made public. This community has just been charged with judging if the > board acted appropriately. You have not. We cannot make that judgement > without the facts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 5 November 2016 at 13:30, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> > 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! > >> > >>A few things really should FIRST get handled in private. This is the > same regardless whether it's about board oversight or you as a PMC. > >> > >>An example is e.g. when we detect trademark violations. Or if ASF hosted > pages make unfair advertisement for ONE of the involved contributors. In > such cases the PMC (or board if the PMC doesn't act by itself) first tries > to solve those issues _without_ breaking porcelain! Which means the > respective person or company will get contacted in private and not > immediately get hit by public shaming and blaming. In most cases it's just > an oversight and too eager marketing people who don't understand the > impact. Usually the problems quickly get resolved without anyone loosing > it's face. > >> > >> > >>Oh, talking about the 'impact' and some people wondering why the ASF > board is so pissed? > >>Well, the point is that in extremis the whole §501(c),3 (non-for-profit) > status is at risk! Means if we allow a single vendor to create an unfair > business benefit, then this might be interpreted as a profit making > mechanism by the federal tax office... > >>This is one of the huge differences to some other OSS projects which are > basically owned by one company or where companies simply can buy a seat in > the board. > >> > >> > >>LieGrue, > >>strub > >> > >>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! > >> > >> > >>PPS: DataStax did a lot for Cassandra, but the public perception > nowadays seems to be that DataStax donated Cassandra to the ASF. This is > not true. It was created and contributed by Facebook > >>https://wiki.apache.org/ incubator/Cassandramany years before DataStax > was even founded > >> > >> > >> > >>On Saturday, 5 November 2016, 13:12, Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>I would hope the board would engage with criticism substantively, and > that "long emails" to boards@ would be responded to on their merit, > without a grassroots effort to apply pressure. > >>> > >>> > >>>In lieu of that, it is very hard for the community to "speak with one > voice" because we do not know what actions the board has undertaken. This > is at odds with "The Apache Way" core tenet of Openness. > >>> > >>> > >>>The actions I have seen on the public fora by both Chris and Mark make > me doubt the actions in private were reasonable. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>I reiterate that the board should make all of its discussions about > DataStax, particularly those with the PMC-private list, public. Otherwise > the community cannot perform the function you ask. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>On 5 November 2016 at 03:08, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>[In the mail below I try not to cast judgement, I do not know enough of > the background to have an opinion on this specific situation. My comments > are in response to the question “Where are the board's guidelines then, or > do they make it up as they go?”.] > >>>> > >>>>The boards guidelines are the Apache Way. This is a fluid thing that > adapts to individual project needs but has a few common pillars in all > projects, e.g. PMC is responsible for community health and PMC members are > expected to act as individuals in the interest of the community. The board > is empowered, by the ASF membership (individuals with merit) to take any > action necessary to ensure a PMC is carrying out its duty. > >>>> > >>>>If a PMC is being ineffective then the board only has blunt > instruments to work with. Their actions appear to cut deep because they > have no scalpel with which to work. The scalpel should be in the hands of > the PMC, but by definition if the board intervenes the PMC is failing to > use the scalpel. > >>>> > >>>>So how do we identify appropriate action? Well I can tell you that any > action of the board will result in more dissatisfied PMC members than > satisfied ones. This is because, by definition, if the board are acting it > is because the PMC is failing in its duty to build a vendor neutral and > healthy community. The measure is whether the broader community feel that > the board are acting in their best interests – including those who have not > been given the privilege of merit (yes, PMC membership and committership is > a privilege not a right). > >>>> > >>>>This is not to say the board are incapable of making a mistake. They > are 9 humans after all. However, I can assure you (based on painful > experience) that getting 9 humans to agree to use a blunt instrument that > will make a mess in the short term is extremely hard. That’s why we have a > board of 9 rather than 5 (or any other smaller number) it minimizes the > chances of error. It’s also why the board is usually slower to move than > one might expect. > >>>> > >>>>However, should the board make a mistake the correct action is to get > the community as a whole to express their concern. Demonstrate that the > community, as a whole, feels that the board acted inappropriately. Don’t > waste time with long emails to board@. The people here trust in the > process and the board. We don’t know what’s been happening inside your > project, we don’t pass judgement. To make us care you must have your > community speak with one voice. Demonstrate that you have consensus around > your opinions. Then, and only then, will the membership - the people who > vote for the board and hold them accountable – accept your argument that > the board have acted inappropriately. > >>>> > >>>>Ross > >>>> > >>>>From: Benedict Elliott Smith [mailto:bened...@apache.org] > >>>>Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 7:08 PM > >>>>To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>Cc: Apache Board <bo...@apache.org>; Łukasz Dywicki < > l...@code-house.org>; Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org>; Kelly Sommers > <kell.somm...@gmail.com>; Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> > >>>>Subject: Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF > >>>> > >>>>Where are the board's guidelines then, or do they make it up as they > go? Flame wars are a risk of every public forum and discussion, and doing > everything in public is one of the tenets of the ASF. > >>>> > >>>>Jim Jagielski stated to me on twitter that a bare minimum of > discussions happen in private, and did not list this as one of the > exceptions, despite it being the context. His statement was inline with the > link I provided, and he is a board member. So ostensibly a board member > agrees, at least in principle. > >>>> > >>>>Regardless, the issue in question is if the board was sufficiently > hostile to DataStax for them to rationally and reasonably feel the correct > course of action was to mitigate their business risk exposure to the ASF > board. It seems to me that may well be the case, but we cannot know for > sure because the board was doing it behind closed doors despite members of > the board suggesting this isn't how things work. > >>>> > >>>>Given this inconsistency, and the fact that Mark Thomas (a board > member) apparently hadn't even read the ASF guidelines before wantonly > enforcing them, and the composure of Chris, as pointed out by Russel, I > think it is reasonable to doubt the boards' credibility entirely. > >>>> > >>>>So, I'm asking for clarity. Preferably, a complete publication of the > discussions that happened in private on the topic. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >>>>On Saturday, 5 November 2016, Tom Barber <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi<mailt > o:tom.bar...@meteorite.bi>> wrote: > >>>>You know you've linked to a PMC page, when the board isn't a PMC? For > >>>>example, board member a, thinks project X isn't doing things correctly > and > >>>>their first course of action is to post notes on a public development > >>>>mailing list? You'd have arguments and flame wars left right and > centre. > >>>> > >>>>Having watched the discussion unfolding, whilst some discussion clearly > >>>>went on on a private mailing list, the details pertinent to the PMC > were > >>>>made available and I believe they were CC'd pretty regularly. > >>>> > >>>>I won't answer directly for the board for #2, but I suspect the answer > >>>>would be, Cassandra has been through the incubation phase, so the PMC > >>>>should understand how the project should be run, its not the boards > job to > >>>>fix it directly. Did the board act unreasonably? I don't think so. Did > some > >>>>heated discussions take place? Undoubtedly. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org<javascrip t:;> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> This discussion is bundling up two issues: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) Did DataStax have an outsized role on the project which needed to > be > >>>>> offset, preferably with increased participation? > >>>>> > >>>>> 2) Did the Board behave reasonably in trying to fix it? > >>>>> > >>>>> As far as I can tell the answers are 1) Yes, 2) No > >>>>> > >>>>> Can the board please now unequivocally answer if they followed > protocol > >>>>> and kept all discussions around company involvement to public > mailing lists? > >>>>> > >>>>> https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc .html#mailing-list-private<htt > ps://na01.safelinks.protection .outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F% > 2Fwww.apache.org%2Fdev%2Fpmc.h tml%23mailing-list-private&dat > a=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40mic rosoft.com%7C5c04c4a66e0946fb5 > 76908d4052086e2%7C72f988bf86f1 41af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0% > 7C636139084643734494&sdata= OCEuwt1KWAv6e586vEixFLQfAJOWbL > pvb9kpKw9TwLI%3D&reserved=0> > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm certain they did not, and they cannot as a result claim to be > >>>>> upholding ASF process and ideals. Similarly to how Mark Thomas > recently > >>>>> attempted to misapply ASF policies, when policing user mailing > >>>>> list discussions. > >>>>> > >>>>> I originally supported the ASF efforts to improve the project. I have > >>>>> since lost all faith in the board. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >>>>> On Saturday, 5 November 2016, Chris Mattmann > >>>>> <mattm...@apache.org<javascrip > t:;>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Thank you for sending this. I am not going to reply in depth now, > but > >>>>>> will do so to Kelly and > >>>>>> others over the weekend, but this is *precisely* the reason that I > have > >>>>>> been so emphatic > >>>>>> about trying to get the PMC to see the road they have already gone > done > >>>>>> and the ship that > >>>>>> has already set sail. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Those not familiar with Lucene and its vote to merge Lucene/Solr > may want > >>>>>> to Google the > >>>>>> Apache archives around 2010 and see some of the effects of > Individual > >>>>>> organizations and > >>>>>> vendors driving supposedly vendor neutral Apache projects. It’s not > even > >>>>>> conjecture at this > >>>>>> point in Cassandra. The Board has acted as Greg referred to > else-thread, > >>>>>> and we asked Jonathan & the > >>>>>> PMC to find a new chair (rotation is healthy yes, but we also need > the > >>>>>> chair to be the eyes > >>>>>> and ears of the Board and we asked for a change there). Mark Thomas > from > >>>>>> the Apache Board > >>>>>> also has a set of actions that he is working with the PMC having to > do > >>>>>> with trademarks and > >>>>>> other items to move towards more independent governance. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Your experience that you cite below Lukasz is precisely one I found > in > >>>>>> Lucene/Solr, Hadoop, > >>>>>> Maven, and other projects. Sometimes the ship has been righted – for > >>>>>> example in all of these > >>>>>> projects they have moved towards much more independent governance, > >>>>>> welcoming to contributors, > >>>>>> and shared community for the project. However, in other cases (see > >>>>>> IBATIS), it didn’t work out, for > >>>>>> various reasons including community issues, but also > misunderstandings as > >>>>>> to the way that the > >>>>>> ASF works. I know my own experience of being an unpaid, occasional > >>>>>> contributor to some open > >>>>>> source projects has put me to a disadvantage even in some ASF > projects > >>>>>> driven by a single vendor. > >>>>>> I’ve also been paid to work on open source (at the ASF and > elsewhere) and > >>>>>> in doing so, been on the > >>>>>> other side of the code. That’s why ASF projects and my own work in > >>>>>> particular I strive to try and > >>>>>> remain neutral and to address these types of issues by being > welcoming, > >>>>>> lower the bar to committership > >>>>>> and PMC, and moving “contributors” to having a vote/shared > governance of > >>>>>> the project at the ASF. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for sending this email and your insights are welcome below. > The > >>>>>> Apache Board should hear this > >>>>>> too so I am CC’ing them. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>> Chris > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> On 11/4/16, 5:03 PM, "Łukasz Dywicki" <l...@code-house.org<javascrip > t:;>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Good evening, > >>>>>> I feel myself a bit called to table by both Kelly and Chris. > Thing is > >>>>>> I don’t know personally nor have any relationship with both of you. > I’m not > >>>>>> even ASF member. My tweet was simply reaction for Kelly complaints > about > >>>>>> ASF punishing out DataStax. Kelly timeline also contained statement > such > >>>>>> "forming a long term strategy to grow diversity around” which > reminded me > >>>>>> my attempts to collaborate on Cassandra and Tinkerpop projects to > grow such > >>>>>> diversity. I collected message links and quotes and put it into > gist who > >>>>>> could be read by anyone: > >>>>>> https://gist.github.com/splat ch/aebe4ad4d127922642bee0dc9a8 > b1ec1<https://na01.safelinks.p rotection.outlook.com/?url=htt ps%3A%2F% > 2Fgist.github.com%2Fs platch%2Faebe4ad4d127922642bee > 0dc9a8b1ec1&data=02%7C01%7CRos s.Gardler%40microsoft.com% > 7C5c04c4a66e0946fb576908d40520 86e2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7 > cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6361390846 43734494&sdata=fyu1vH6AUhkW% > 2Bk%2FJmQhKsAH3kBmzxPXEs8bt161 SPXU%3D&reserved=0> > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don’t want to bring now these topics back and disscuss > technical > >>>>>> stuff over again. It happened to me in the past to refuse (or vote > against) > >>>>>> some change proposals in other Apache projects I am involved. I was > on the > >>>>>> other ("bad guy") side multiple times. I simply collected public > records of > >>>>>> interactions with DataStax staff I was aware, simply because of my > personal > >>>>>> involvement. It shown how some ideas, yet cassandra mailing list > don’t have > >>>>>> many of these coming from externals, are getting put a side with > very > >>>>>> little or even lack of will to pull in others people work in. This > is > >>>>>> blocking point for anyone coming from external sides to get > involved into > >>>>>> project and help it growing. If someone changes requires moves in > project > >>>>>> core or it’s public APIs that person will require support from > project > >>>>>> members to get this done. If such help will not be given it any > outside > >>>>>> change will be ever completed and noone will invest time in doing > something > >>>>>> more than fixing typos or common programmer errors which we all do > from > >>>>>> time to time. Despite of impersonal nature of communications in > Internet we > >>>>>> still do have human interactions and we all have just one chance to > make > >>>>>> first impression. If we made it wrong at beginning its hard to fix > it later > >>>>>> on. > >>>>>> Some decisions made in past by project PMCs lead to situation > that > >>>>>> project was forked and maintained outside ASF (ie. stratio > cassandra which > >>>>>> eventually ended up as lucene indexes plugin over a year ago), some > other > >>>>>> did hurt users running cassandra for long time (ie. discontinuation > of > >>>>>> thrift). Especially second decission was seen by outsiders, who do > not > >>>>>> desire billion writes per second, as marketing driven. This led to > people > >>>>>> looking and finding alternatives using compatible interface which > might be, > >>>>>> ironically, even faster (ie. scylladb). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And since there was quote battle on twitter between Jim > Jagielski and > >>>>>> Benedict, I can throw some in as well. Over conferences I attended > and even > >>>>>> during consultancy services I got, I’ve spoken with some people > having > >>>>>> records of DataStax in their resumes and even them told me > "collaboration > >>>>>> with them [cassandra team] was hard". Now imagine how outsider will > get any > >>>>>> chance to get any change done with such attitude shown even to own > >>>>>> colleagues? Must also note that Tinkerpop is getting better on this > field > >>>>>> since it has much more generic nature. > >>>>>> I don’t think this whole topic is to say that you (meaning > DataStax) > >>>>>> made wrong job, or you are doing wrong for project but about > letting others > >>>>>> join forces with you to make Cassandra even better. Maybe there is > not a > >>>>>> lot of people currently walking around but once you will welcome > and help > >>>>>> them working with you on code base you may be sure that others will > join > >>>>>> making your development efforts easier and shared across community. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Kind regards, > >>>>>> Lukasz > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Wiadomość napisana przez Edward Capriolo < > edlinuxg...@gmail.com<javascr ipt:;>> w > >> > >>>>>> dniu 4 lis 2016, o godz. 18:55: > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Kelly Sommers < > >>>>>> kell.somm...@gmail.com<javascr ipt:;>> > >>>> > >>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> >> I think the community needs some clarification about what's > going > >>>>>> on. > >>>>>> >> There's a really concerning shift going on and the story > about why > >>>>>> is > >>>>>> >> really blurry. I've heard all kinds of wild claims about > what's > >>>>>> going on. > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> I've heard people say the ASF is pushing DataStax out > because they > >>>>>> don't > >>>>>> >> like how much control they have over Cassandra. I've heard > other > >>>>>> people say > >>>>>> >> DataStax and the ASF aren't getting along. I've heard one > person > >>>>>> who has > >>>>>> >> pull with a friend in the ASF complained about a feature not > >>>>>> getting > >>>>>> >> considered (who also didn't go down the correct path of > proposing) > >>>>>> kicked > >>>>>> >> and screamed and started the ball rolling for control change. > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> I don't know what's going on, and I doubt the truth is in > any of > >>>>>> those, the > >>>>>> >> truth is probably somewhere in between. As a former > Cassandra MVP > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> >> builder of some of the larger Cassandra clusters in the last > 3 > >>>>>> years I'm > >>>>>> >> concerned. > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> I've been really happy with Jonathan and DataStax's role in > the > >>>>>> Cassandra > >>>>>> >> community. I think they have done a great job at investing > time > >>>>>> and money > >>>>>> >> towards the good interest in the project. I think it is > >>>>>> unavoidable a > >>>>>> >> single company bootstraps large projects like this into > >>>>>> popularity. It's > >>>>>> >> those companies investments who give the ability to grow > diversity > >>>>>> in later > >>>>>> >> stages. The committer list in my opinion is the most diverse > its > >>>>>> ever been, > >>>>>> >> hasn't it? Apple is a big player now. > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> I don't think reducing DataStax's role for the sake of > diversity > >>>>>> is smart. > >>>>>> >> You grow diversity by opening up new opportunities for > others. > >>>>>> Grow the > >>>>>> >> committer list perhaps. Mentor new people to join that list. > You > >>>>>> don't kick > >>>>>> >> someone to the curb and hope things improve. You add. > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> I may be way off on what I'm seeing but there's not much to > go by > >>>>>> but > >>>>>> >> gossip (ahaha :P) and some ASF meeting notes and DataStax > blog > >>>>>> posts. > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> August 17th 2016 ASF changed the Apache Cassandra chair > >>>>>> >> https://www.apache.org/foundat ion/records/minutes/< > https://n a01.safelinks.protection.outlo ok.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. > apache.org%2Ffoundation%2Freco rds%2Fminutes%2F&data=02%7C01% > 7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft. com%7C5c04c4a66e0946fb576908d4 > 052086e2%7C72f988bf86f141af91a b2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0% > 7C636139084643734494&sdata= tUnCACcUzARHCi4ZIz3nf3kUPSQkjK > sZaCF96e3E5ac%3D&reserved=0> > >>>>>> >> 2016/board_minutes_2016_08_17. txt > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> "The Board expressed continuing concern that the PMC was not > acting > >>>>>> >> independently and that one company had undue influence over > the > >>>>>> project." > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> August 19th 2016 Jonothan Ellis steps down as chair > >>>>>> >> http://www.datastax.com/2016/0 > 8/a-look-back-a-look-forward<h ttps://na01.safelinks.protecti > on.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F %2Fwww.datastax.com%2F2016%2F0 > 8%2Fa-look-back-a-look-forward &data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler% > 40microsoft.com%7C5c04c4a66e09 46fb576908d4052086e2%7C72f988b > f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1% 7C0%7C636139084643734494& > sdata=5De2ySsguPY381uaQyrS4UaD MI0am5rNZhn7YtaiwSs%3D&reserve d=0> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> November 2nd 2016 DataStax moves committers to DSE from > Cassandra. > >>>>>> >> http://www.datastax.com/2016/1 > 1/serving-customers-serving-th <https://na01.safelinks.protec > tion.outlook.com/?url=http%3A% 2F%2Fwww.datastax.com%2F2016%2 > F11%2Fserving-customers-servin g-th&data=02%7C01%7CRoss. Gardler% > 40microsoft.com% 7C5c04c4a66e0946fb576908d40520 > 86e2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7 cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6361390846 > 43734494&sdata=vqI4LOx%2Btpmgs mQMgLqRGeW3%2Fg0Q%2BeERrxqNkP1 > jYb8%3D&reserved=0> > >>>> > >>>>>> e-community > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> I'm really concerned if indeed the ASF is trying to change > control > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> >> diversity of organizations by reducing DataStax's role. As > I said > >>>>>> earlier, > >>>>>> >> I've been really happy at the direction DataStax and > Jonathan has > >>>>>> taken the > >>>>>> >> project and I would much prefer see additional opportunities > along > >>>>>> side > >>>>>> >> theirs grow instead of subtracting. The ultimate question > that's > >>>>>> really > >>>>>> >> important is whether DataStax and Jonathan have been > steering the > >>>>>> project > >>>>>> >> in the right direction. If the answer is yes, then is there > really > >>>>>> anything > >>>>>> >> broken? Only if the answer is no should change happen, in my > >>>>>> opinion. > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> Can someone at the ASF please clarify what is going on? The > ASF > >>>>>> meeting > >>>>>> >> notes are very concerning. > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> Thank you for listening, > >>>>>> >> Kelly Sommers > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > Kelly, > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > Thank you for taking the time to mention this. I want to > react to > >>>>>> this > >>>>>> > statement: > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > "I've heard people say the ASF is pushing DataStax out > because they > >>>>>> don't > >>>>>> > like how much control they have over Cassandra. I've heard > other > >>>>>> people say > >>>>>> > DataStax and the ASF aren't getting along. I've heard one > person > >>>>>> who has > >>>>>> > pull with a friend in the ASF complained about a feature not > getting > >>>>>> > considered (who also didn't go down the correct path of > proposing) > >>>>>> kicked > >>>>>> > and screamed and started the ball rolling for control change." > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > There is an important saying in the ASF: > >>>>>> > https://community.apache.org/n ewbiefaq.html<https://na01.saf > elinks.protection.outlook.com/ ?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.a > pache.org%2Fnewbiefaq.html&dat > a=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40mic rosoft.com%7C5c04c4a66e0946fb5 > 76908d4052086e2%7C72f988bf86f1 41af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0% > 7C636139084643734494&sdata= l5vVCp%2FEn4QFXIfnAFWGulr2J6ZD > zAsS8jdVNyAT1%2F8%3D&reserved= 0> > >>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > - If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > It is natural that communication happens outside of Jira. The > rough > >>>>>> aim of > >>>>>> > this mandate is a conversation like that that happens by the > water > >>>>>> cooler > >>>>>> > should be summarized and moved into a forum where it can be > >>>>>> recorded and > >>>>>> > discussed. There is a danger in repeating something anecdotal > or > >>>>>> 'things > >>>>>> > you have heard'. If that party is being suppressed, that is an > >>>>>> issue to > >>>>>> > deal with. If a party is unwilling to speak for themselves > publicly > >>>>>> in the > >>>>>> > ASF public forums that is on them. Retelling what others told > us is > >>>>>> > 'gossip' as you put it. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > "I think it is unavoidable a single company bootstraps large > >>>>>> projects like > >>>>>> > this into popularity" > >>>>>> > "I don't think reducing DataStax's role for the sake of > diversity is > >>>>>> > smart." > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > Let me state my opinion as an open source ASF member that was > never > >>>>>> > directly payed to work on an open source project. I have > proposed > >>>>>> and seen > >>>>>> > proposed by others ideas to several open source projects > inside > >>>>>> (ASF and > >>>>>> > outside) which were rejected. Later (months maybe years > later) the > >>>>>> exact > >>>>>> > idea or roughly the same idea is implemented by different > person in > >>>>>> a > >>>>>> > slightly different form. There is a lot of grey area there. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > How does that related to this http://www.datastax.com/2016/< > https://na01.safelinks.protect ion.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2 F% > 2Fwww.datastax.com%2F2016%2F &data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler% > 40microsoft.com%7C5c04c4a66e09 > 46fb576908d4052086e2%7C72f988b f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1% > 7C0%7C636139084643744506&sdata =6Pn5o6Abfuy84NltYW7CoTaRvUxss > QO0d%2Bh9nq%2FpUMs%3D&reserved =0> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> > 11/serving-customers-serving-t he-community ? > >> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > Remember the ASF is a volunteer organization. One desired > effect of > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> > volunteerism is so that one single large company does not > bootstrap > >>>>>> or > >>>>>> > control the project. (When my proposed ideas got knocked > down, I > >>>>>> had some > >>>>>> > choices including complain to anyone that will listen, lick my > >>>>>> wounds and > >>>>>> > press on, or become less involved.) > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > Whatever event has happened has happened. Like you, I only > know of > >>>>>> it > >>>>>> > second hand so I will not comment. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > The volunteer committers can decide their own level of > involvement. > >>>>>> For > >>>>>> > example, they can "double down" and use their free time to > stay > >>>>>> > involved. They can attempt to convince their organization that > >>>>>> pulling them > >>>>>> > back is the wrong move, or they can fall away. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > " The ultimate question that's really important is whether > DataStax > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> > Jonathan have been steering the project in the right > direction" > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > Outside of the politics/litigation it is becoming normal for > an ASF > >>>>>> project > >>>>>> > to rotate the PMC chair. It keeps things fresh, and helps > avoid > >>>>>> issues > >>>>>> > where some may perceive control by one person/entity. Your > question > >>>>>> may > >>>>>> > ultimately highlight an issue as ASF sees it, namely who is > >>>>>> "steering" you > >>>>>> > mention a corporate entity in your question. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > >
