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 <j...@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 <jji...@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 <dbros...@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 <alek...@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 (j...@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. :) > >>> > >> > >
