I don't think there was anything wrong with the linked thread.
On 11/01/2020, 18:19, "Sankalp Kohli" <[email protected]> wrote:
Words are open to interpretation but I do not see anyone telling anyone
anything but proposing it in this and other thread. AFAIK, people who tell even
accidentally don’t start a discussion thread or ask for feedback before they do
things.
The thread on video calls was a discussion and no one objected to it so
community is starting it. No one told anyone that this must happen.
This thread Josh is asking if he can help and not telling anyone he will do
it.
Ideas and suggestions can be interrupted as told but again that is
interpreted differently but everyone.
(We have a thread I linked so let’s move there if anyone has suggestion on
video call To keep all context in one thread)
> On Jan 11, 2020, at 10:02 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I've tried to make my concerns as clear as possible: there's a
difference between proposing and telling.
>
> People who have de-facto power (through the resources they control) are
able to _tell_ other people that things are a certain way. They may easily do
it accidentally. So they must be especially careful to never to do so, or to
be seen to do so.
>
> If it's still not clear, there's no point flogging a dead horse.
>
>
> On 11/01/2020, 17:50, "Sankalp Kohli" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The Agenda is public and everyone will contribute to it. Anyone can
attend the meeting. Anyone can propose an alternate time. How is it private ?
>
> What else do you suggest ?
>
>> On Jan 11, 2020, at 9:31 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I think everyone is missing my point, and the reason for it. I am
super focused on not repeating the situation that happened before. So I am
super keen that everyone is focused on doing everything as properly as
possible. Telling the community: we've privately decided this important
community thing is happening on this date, and we will tell you when we have
published an agenda, is the wrong way to do it.
>>
>> Private meetings like this are fine. Afterwards somebody can send an
email to the list saying "we've talked and we think it would be nice to have a
meeting on 22nd of January, and we're hoping to propose an agenda a week in
advance so the community can discuss it - does that sound good to everyone?"
>>
>> The difference is subtle, and yet not subtle. Probably it will receive
little to no interesting response and your proposal will be endorsed. But you
have to do it, because that's how the decision is made. I'm not sure why this
is controversial - you all know this is true, I'm certain of it.
>>
>> People keep forgetting. I'm just going to sit here and keep reminding
you, so that this email thread is hopefully the worst we have to deal with.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/01/2020, 17:07, "sankalp kohli" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Here is the mail thread where we discussed this. It also has agreement
that
>> we will discuss things on mailing list and no decision till it happens
on
>> mailing list. Hope this clears things up when you read the thread.
>>
>>
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/aa54420a43671c00392978f2b0920bc6926ca9ba1e61a486ad39fb21%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E
>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 3:16 AM Benedict Elliott Smith
<[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I recall this being discussed at ApacheCon, and I recall the idea seemed
>>> very much for a semi-formal regular project meeting, in which project
>>> business would be discussed on a pre-agreed agenda. Some ground rules
were
>>> even suggested at ApacheCon, such as ensuring the meetings occur in
>>> rotating timezones, that the agenda is proposed and voted upon on-list
in
>>> advance, etc.
>>>
>>> Nothing is a decision until it happens on-list, and in this case the
date,
>>> time, agenda and process should be a proposal, not something that is
>>> predetermined.
>>>
>>> A great comparison is the CEP proposal, which was discussed at
ApacheCon,
>>> brought on-list, codified, modified and voted on.
>>>
>>> It's very easy for people who have resources at their disposal to start
to
>>> behave as though they have decision-making power, because usually things
>>> happen in the way that they propose. This happens even with the best of
>>> intentions, and I have never once implied or suspected bad intentions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/01/2020, 04:24, "Jeff Jirsa" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> This will be rambling as I’m typing on my phone while watching The
>>> Office and I’m not going to proofread, but:
>>>
>>> PMC votes on releases, and code policies, and trademarks, and things
>>> of that nature. While the link suggests PMCs *can* sponsor meetings,
>>> nothing should preclude anyone from meeting to talk about the database -
>>> there are countless cassandra meetups around and we never try to police
>>> those (and we shouldn’t start), as long as they’re not pretending to be
>>> speaking on behalf of the project.
>>>
>>> A couple non-committer contributors deciding to hop on a video call
>>> and encourage other contributors to attend seems both harmless to the
>>> project and something that can help build awareness and bring attention
to
>>> some of the otherwise invisible work that’s happening.
>>>
>>> It’s not on behalf of the project PMC, this thread has made that
>>> clear, but I think there’s value here, even if anything discussed or
>>> proposed on any hypothetical call has no standing and wouldn’t represent
>>> the PMC or the project. Having folks who care about the database talk
about
>>> the community, even if they’re not committers, doesn’t seem all that
>>> damaging to me, as long as they’re not violating trademark to promote
it or
>>> somehow misrepresenting the nature of the call.
>>>
>>> I get the concern about implicit control of the project and how that
>>> can devolve over time despite good intentions.
>>>
>>> As with the long threads in 2015/2016, I think we should be sure not
>>> to overreact out of fear, and should assume good intent.
>>>
>>> Given the concern, I also think folks trying to build community should
>>> make a point of over communicating to the dev list.
>>>
>>> Hugs and kisses friends,
>>> - Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 6:05 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> To be clear, as it seems like I'm being very negative here, I'm
>>> really pleased to see DataStax suddenly increase their participation,
even
>>> if currently it's limited to administrative activities. But let's try
>>> really hard to do things in the right way.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html#meetings
>>>>
>>>> Community and meetings are explicitly within the intended purview of
>>> the PMC. The Cassandra PMC ordinarily implicitly devolves
decision-making
>>> to the dev list, so a lack of formal role is no impediment to
participation
>>> _here on the devlist_ but making decisions off-list amongst a cohort
>>> lacking _any_ formal members of the community is a particularly bad look
>>> IMO, and the kind of indifference to "The Apache Way" that lead to the
>>> fallout with DataStax many moons ago.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, Patrick said "we've decided we're running a
>>> contributor meeting on this date" which starts to look like an attempt -
>>> however unintentional - to make decisions about community and
collaboration
>>> _for_ the project.
>>>>
>>>> Instead, IMO, presenting a clear proposal to the community about how
>>> this could happen, giving it due time to respond and consider (and
probably
>>> mostly express gratitude!) is the right way to do it. It might lead to
>>> tweaks, it might lead to minor preconditions about process, it might
lead
>>> to nothing. But that's how these kinds of things should happen, even
>>> ignoring the ASF stuff, if only out of politeness.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/01/2020, 01:52, "J. D. Jordan" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Isn’t doing such things the way people who are not writing code
>>> become part of a project? By offering their time to do things that
benefit
>>> the project?
>>>>
>>>> Why does anyone “with a formal role” need to agree that Patrick is
>>> allowed to use his time to try and get some people together to discuss
>>> contributing?
>>>>
>>>> -Jeremiah Jordan
>>>> Person with no formal role in the Apache Cassandra project.
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> This is also great. But it's a bit of a weird look to have two
>>> people, neither of whom have formal roles on the project, making
decisions
>>> like this without the involvement of the community. I'm sure everyone
will
>>> be supportive, but it would help to democratise the decision-making.
>>>>> On 11/01/2020, 01:39, "Patrick McFadin" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Scott and I had a talk this week and we are starting the contributor
>>>>> meetings on 1/22 as we talked about at NGCC. (Yeah that was back in
>>>>> September) Stay tuned for the details and agenda in the project
>>> confluence
>>>>> page.
>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that
>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I
>>> imagine
>>>>>> they'd
>>>>>>>> also make writing the board report easier.
>>>>>>>> +1, those were great
>>>>>>> I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into
>>> doing
>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> from time to time.
>>>>>> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do
>>> them if
>>>>>> he's got time).
>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
