Open like source.

* Nothing racist is implied or intended by that turn of phrase (recursive 
Kleene closure on that).

Marko.

> On Jan 10, 2022, at 9:10 AM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Marko, would you be open to a one-on-one conversation with me over video
> chat?
> 
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:05 AM Marko Rodriguez <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for the update. I opened up my email this morning to ping:
>> 
>>        “Any updates? I can’t believe open source software has come to
>> this. I look back and think, once you took your recent corporate position
>> and then were put on the Apache Board, it turned a once great software
>> development team, never mired in politics, into secret backdoor discussions
>> of what I can only presume to be of the nature  “What does he know? More
>> than what he mentioned? **k that guy! We’re Apache — we're not going to be
>> held hostage by some Nazi racist!” Stephen, you would be surprised by who
>> has connected with me after hearing of Apache’s move to remove me from my
>> project. The people you have allied yourself with (for whatever reason) are
>> not of the caliber of person that I know you to be. I’ve known you for 15
>> years now, working closely in harmony over numerous companies, and while
>> I’m aware of your life stresses and what that can do to a man, I’m certain
>> you are not of their breed. Don’t sully your soul by remaining entangled
>> with an organization that was once the life blood of open source software
>> and now, given all I’ve seen with my situation with them and have come to
>> learn from other, also its death. Good luck to you, old friend — I will
>> continue to remain in my holding pattern.”
>> 
>> Take care,
>> Marko.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 7, 2022, at 4:28 AM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Marko, I know this thread is a week old at this point. I just wanted
>> to
>>> let you know it's not being ignored. Thank you for your patience.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:24 PM Marko Rodriguez <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Understood.
>>>> 
>>>> Marko.
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 5, 2022, at 12:31 PM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please allow some more time for a reply as I've been away for the New
>>>> Years
>>>>> Eve weekend.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 12:50 PM Marko Rodriguez <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hey Stephen,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Any movement on what I presented below? Meaning, do you 1.) agree with
>>>>>> inconsistent application of the “violated social norms” clause and if
>> so
>>>>>> 2.) do you plan to argue my point ‘in good faith’ (meaning, the
>>>> following
>>>>>> sentiment resonates with you: "every person has skeletons in their
>>>> closet
>>>>>> so why I are we attacking Marko after contributing his PhD work to
>>>> Apache
>>>>>> and then spending over a decade developing it only to kick him off the
>>>>>> project for telling jokes on Twitter?”).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you don’t agree, then please tell me so I can move forward on my
>>>> side.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you very much,
>>>>>> Marko.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Dec 31, 2021, at 2:14 PM, Marko Rodriguez <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As you all may know, I was recently removed from TinkerPop for the
>>>> crime
>>>>>> of “being a Nazi troll.” When arguing I’m not a Nazi, I was told I
>>>>>> “violated social norms.” Assuming I violated social norms, I inquired
>>>> as to
>>>>>> where such social norms are specified as I never signed anything when
>>>>>> providing TinkerPop to Apache that mentioned ’social norms'. Moreover,
>>>> if
>>>>>> the crime of violating social norms is in fact how Apache wishes to
>>>> judge
>>>>>> people for the sake of removal by committee, then I believe this
>> statute
>>>>>> should be applied fairly and equally. Thus, please review the
>> following
>>>>>> “social norm violations” made by people in Apache and on Apache
>>>> TinkerPop.
>>>>>> Given that social norms are not specified anywhere, I offer simply
>> what
>>>> I
>>>>>> believe fall within this fuzzy category.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. Roy Fielding stating I’m a Nazi troll. When asked for evidence of
>> me
>>>>>> being part of the Nazi party, none was presented. As far as I know,
>> the
>>>>>> Nazi party dissolved post WW2 and seems to exist as a word use by
>> modern
>>>>>> folk to remove people they dislike from their positions. The question:
>>>> is
>>>>>> libel a violation of social norms?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2. Sam Ruby in the past had threatened me with physical violence. If
>>>>>> threat of violence is not breaking social norms then that seems like a
>>>>>> break from social norms in and of itself. Thus, was Sam Ruby removed
>>>> from
>>>>>> his position in Apache? The question: is threat of violence a
>> violation
>>>> of
>>>>>> social norms?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 3. danielfb@ is the mysterious character that had access to our
>>>>>> private@tinkerpop mailing list and said that a picture I made in
>>>>>> photoshop of one of my chickens in WW2 regalia was “offensive” to him
>> (I
>>>>>> assume ‘him' given the name ‘daniel’). My response was initially to
>> joke
>>>>>> (as I do), but then continued with (I paraphrase) “let’s talk more as
>> I
>>>>>> think you will find me to be a jokester.” That man was never heard
>> from
>>>>>> again. The question: is allowing seemingly random people on our
>> private
>>>>>> mailing list in order to entrap me a violation of social norms?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 4. Roy Fielding was unhappy with the fact that no one on the
>> TinkerPop
>>>>>> PMC cared about danielfb@’s allegation of me being a racist. In fact,
>>>>>> Jorge said (I paraphrase) "that’s not racism, he’s just being silly.”
>> He
>>>>>> went on to note organizations that Apache could get behind that help
>>>> fight
>>>>>> racism — unfortunately, that fell on deaf ears. Instead, Roy Fielding
>>>> went
>>>>>> ahead and ignored the PMC's brush off saying (I paraphrase) “I know
>> you
>>>> are
>>>>>> friends and its hard to punish people you’ve worked with.” This seemed
>>>> odd
>>>>>> to me because the email prior I had said “no one ever stands up for me
>>>>>> because most people never understand the point I’m trying to make with
>>>> my
>>>>>> craft.” (I consider much of the work I do ‘art’). Thus, Roy Fielding
>>>> pushed
>>>>>> an agenda placing thoughts/emotions in colleagues that did not exist.
>>>> The
>>>>>> question: is baiting the group so they do his 'dirty work' not a
>>>> violation
>>>>>> of social norms?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 5. Stephen Mallette and I  have worked together for over a decade. It
>>>>>> came as a shock to me that he said nothing in favor of my person when
>> I
>>>> was
>>>>>> deemed a “racist” and a “nazi.” The question: is not standing up for a
>>>>>> friend who has been there for you for many years not a violation of
>>>> social
>>>>>> norms?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 6. Stephen Mallette knows what I was “charged with” was just some
>>>> social
>>>>>> ploy using the rhetoric of the times to restructure power by removing
>>>> those
>>>>>> individuals that don’t tow some party line which I was never made
>> aware
>>>> of.
>>>>>> While I assert these are whimsical and without merit, you know what
>> real
>>>>>> charges you have against yourself, Stephen, and I won’t get into
>> those,
>>>> but
>>>>>> I believe you would feel much better (less social stressed) as a
>> person
>>>> if
>>>>>> you were to say: “letting organizations condemn people so they can
>> steal
>>>>>> prestige or money from them is not right and I take my stand against
>>>> it.”
>>>>>> As such, the question: when a person living in a glass house throws
>>>> stones,
>>>>>> is that not a violation of social norms?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 7. Stephen Mallette knows very well the quality of Josh Shinavier’s
>>>>>> contributions and the hollowness of his promises as over the years we
>>>> have
>>>>>> joked many times about it. So why would he be put on the PMC right
>>>> after I
>>>>>> was removed as you and I both know he is a “do-nothing” (says but
>> never
>>>>>> does). Was this a way for you to slow down the project as for many
>> years
>>>>>> you have been pushing off TinkerPop4 for reasons I’m unsure of (aging?
>>>>>> corporate force?). Regardless, the question: is using an unsuspecting
>>>>>> (arguably socially inept) person as a pawn in a social game to secure
>> an
>>>>>> outcome for yourself not a violation of a social norm?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If the 7 points I made above are all considered legitimate behaviors
>>>>>> that do not violate Apache’s unspecified “social norm” statute, then I
>>>>>> believe this statute should be revised given the composition of this
>>>>>> organization — in particular, lifelong programmers typically lack the
>>>>>> sophisticated circuitry necessary to comprehend and thrive in socially
>>>>>> nuanced environments. If the argument is that not having such mental
>>>>>> circuitry is their fault and thus, deserve the wrath wrought by
>>>> violating
>>>>>> social norms, then may you hear my retort: them not having such
>>>> abilities
>>>>>> may be because they are too busy coding (creating the environment for
>>>> those
>>>>>> mingling in social norms to have jobs) to be concerned with the
>> ‘flavor
>>>> of
>>>>>> the day’ words/jokes/etc.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> @Stephen, as PMC Chair, I ask that you consider my argument and, in
>>>> good
>>>>>> faith, argue it to the board given that Roy Fielding never responded
>> to
>>>> any
>>>>>> of my emails — simply decreed and went about his life. Worse, had me
>>>>>> removed from mailing lists so I couldn’t make my argument. If there is
>>>>>> other information you need from me, please don’t hesitate to ask. If
>>>> more
>>>>>> “social violation norm” examples in Apache are necessary, I can
>> provide
>>>>>> them. Many individuals in our society have been attacked in recent
>> times
>>>>>> and I feel it is a great social injustice and to allow it to continue
>>>> would
>>>>>> be detrimental to the creative spirit that allows great open source
>>>>>> software to flourish.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>> Marko A. Rodriguez
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 

Reply via email to