Re: Thanks for all the fish.
Could not agree more - Jonathan, Thanks for all you¹ve done! On 8/19/16, 12:20 PM, "Michael Kjellman" wrote: >Just wanted to say thank you publicly to Jonathan Ellis for his tireless >work making this community and software what it is. He's always been >level headed and I certainly wouldn't be where I am without his >leadership. > >So, Jonathan, thanks for all the fish. > >best, >kjellman
Re: Moderation
PMC member is a committer by default (in the past, we’ve had difficulty electing a member to the PMC without giving them commit access, so electing a member to the PMC without granting them commit access is at the very least nontrivial) The process is the same for all top level projects - the PMC itself nominates and elects new members. The current PMC is listed here: https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?cassandra , if you’re curious about who can nominate at this time. Because it’s driven by nominations at the PMC level, the process is the same, but the actual qualities that lead to a nomination likely vary project to project. Ed mentioned that in Hive, they’ve had members on the PMC that were primarily contributors to docs or had a single meaningful change to the build system. That’s a project-by-project decision, but generally, a diverse PMC helps ensure diversity in the community and helps drive outside contributions, so diversity is encouraged. Looking at the roster, most of the current PMC members were nominated/elected because they’re active committers with deep internal knowledge and a history of contributing, some are nominated/elected because they’re active within the ASF and help us guide the project (I like to imagine I was nominated in part due to past contributions, but also my familiarity with the greater non-Datastax Cassandra community). On 11/6/16, 9:22 AM, "Jonathan Haddad" wrote: >I took a look at https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html, and it doesn't seem >to give any guidelines on who should be on the PMC. My assumption has >always been the most active committers become PMC members, but it sounds >like that's not the case on other projects. Is the process to be added to >the PMC supposed to be the same everywhere, or is it up to the project? >Can you be on the PMC but not have commit access? > >On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 5:04 AM Chris Mattmann wrote: > >> Sorry one typo below: >> >> Where I said: >> >> “The Cassandra MVP comment was also not a diss on you as much as it was >>me >> saying – ideally – I would hope that >> the Apache Cassandra MVP people promote the concept of their community >> leaders becoming “ASF members”, >> and that Cassandra MVPs are great – but secondary – to the >> responsibilities of the PMC to move towards ensuring >> its community understands the Apache Way.” >> >> I meant to say: >> >> “The Cassandra MVP comment was also not a diss on you as much as it was >>me >> saying – ideally – I would hope that >> the Apache Cassandra *PMC* people promote the concept of their community >> leaders becoming “ASF members”, >> and that Cassandra MVPs are great – but secondary – to the >> responsibilities of the PMC to move towards ensuring >> its community understands the Apache Way.” >> >> Thanks. >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> >> On 11/6/16, 6:53 AM, "Chris Mattmann" wrote: >> >> For the record, your breakdown of the email trying to decipher what >>I >> meant is not >> correct. It’s not your fault, but email doesn’t convey tone, nor do >> you know what I am >> thinking or what I was trying to say. In fact, I was actually saying >> the PMC wasn’t doing its job, >> because (as I stated to you months ago), you (and many other >>community >> members of >> Cassandra) *should* have a binding vote. It wasn’t discrediting to >>you >> to point out that >> you don’t have the PMC or committer credentials; it was an example >> trying to point out >> that you *should* have them. And that you clearly care about the >> project as I believe you >> have developed a book on the subject of Apache Cassandra a while >>back >> IIRC which in Tika, >> Nutch, OODT, and a number of other projects would have earned you >>the >> ability to have a >> direct say in those Apache projects. And a lot of others. >> >> It’s these systematic fracturing of the community under the guise >>of a >> single vendor who >> has stated that they care about Cassandra (note the omission of >> Apache), but by demonstration >> has shown they either don’t understand, or don’t care about the >>Apache >> part of the equation. >> That’s what caused me to become frustrated when the following >>sequence >> of events >> happened: >> >> 1. After the Board meeting Mark Thomas one of our Directors took >>point >> on engaging >> the Apache Cassandra PMC with some of the concerns brought up over >>the >> past 6 >> months and the role I was filling there became a back seat for me. >> 2. I saw over the past few days on a Twitter feed retweeted by an >>ASF >> member that >> Kelly Sommers (whom I have never met in person and do not know >> previously) was asking >> questions and stating negative things about the ASF that I believed >> could be much better >> understood by bringing them here to the ASF mailing lists for Apache >> Cassandra. I suggested >> on Twitter that she bring her concerns to the Apache lists and told >> her which em
Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF
Everything you said is accurate, and I don¹t think anyone¹s debating that. What I¹m hoping to convey is the method of communication is such that a SIGNIFICANT number of people interpret the nature of the communication as unnecessarily antagonistic. You seem to think it¹s necessary, but the reaction of the community clearly says otherwise. A person can be 100% right and still come across as a jerk, and the CoC instructs people to avoid doing so, because it¹s damaging to the community. If you ask 100 random people who are neither Cassandra users/developers nor ASF members about whether or not the communication from the ASF board members is in this thread is professional, empathetic, friendly, and likely to build a community, I suspect you¹d find a significant number that would tell you the communication is none of those things. And THAT is a problem, too (and it¹s NOT on the same level as mark issues, but if the question is ³why did Datastax step back from the Apache Cassandra project², it certainly helps explain why a company might want to do that). Let¹s build a community, Jim. On 11/6/16, 12:00 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: >Some clarification. > >Basically, there had been issues w/ DataStax and the PMC for a long, >long time. It came somewhat to a head in Aug when there was >a PR/Email about the "Cassandra Summit" with nary a mention >of Apache at all. None. > >This was after months and months in trying to get DataStax to >honor our marks. It was this final culmination which which >resulted in a board member saying "makes me want to jettison". >At which Jonathan Ellis expressed confusion on what the problem >was and asking about the context, oblivious to the concern. Someone >else noted that both the PMC and Cassandra had been "lectured" on >trademark violations before and said that "one would assume that >someone learned along the way." Someone then wondered whether >these recurring issues where due to some fault in the PMC or >just the normal, expect churn of their being a brand. He >further stated: "I don't see how we can make it the responsibility >of the PMC to catch these things". It was then noted that the >CTO of DataStax is the PMC Chair, as well as co-founder. There >was then further discussions and "education" on mark guidelines, >again, with Jake and Aleksey. Aleksey, at least, admitted that >"If your only success criteria is how well trademark policing is >performed, then sure, we all failed..." > >More discussion. > >Around this time, one board member referred to below most certainly >did characterize the "hammer-time" phrase as "premature and >inflammatory". Others did not. To support that position I will add >some cut/paste quotes from another director: > > o Overall, there are a handful of issues here but they look to be easily >fixable and - with a little education - preventable in the future. > o Given the numbers and seniority of DataStax employees involved with >Apache Cassandra it is disappointing that these errors are being made >but people make mistakes > o The lack of proactive policing of trademarks by the Cassandra >PMC is what concerns me > o Given the history, I do think the board needs to take some form of >action. It has been suggested that the board remove all DataStax >employees from the PMC. I agree things are heading in that direction >but >I don't think we are there yet. > >It was after that that someone mentioned that they were on 3 PMC >and never saw any mark issues with any PMCs other than >Cassandra (this was a not a director speaking). That is when I >replied w/ the "I've seen such issues..." response. > >Some take-aways: > > o Mark compliance issues have been ongoing for a long, long > time. > o The PMC and its chair had been involved in these concerns > for a long, long time. > >Once all this was done, and this particular issue resolved. The final >few Emails on the thread close it off with: > > o Nobody has said commit privs should be removed. Some have discussed >the potential of removing PMC responsibilities > o I would like to see some positive action from the Apache Cassandra >PMC that they are working on managing this problem. > o We all seem to agree that the responsibility for enforcement falls >first to the PMC, then on VP Branding, and then on the President. > >That is the saga of hammers. > >> On Nov 6, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: >> >> Now that I have clarity on what can and can't be relayed to the >>community / dev@, I'm going to reply to this email, and then I suspect >>I'm done for today, because I'd rather watch football than reply to this >>anymore. >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Mark Struberg >> 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! >> >> >> I'm going to disagree with this, in a way I hope lets everyone see >>where things went wrong, and more importantly, the pat
Re: New 'cassandra-builds' git repo, or in-tree?
+1 to new repo. On 11/11/16, 11:55 AM, "Michael Shuler" wrote: >We're working on configuring new donated servers for Apache Cassandra >testing in the ASF Jenkins infrastructure. I have a preference to >request INFRA set up a new git repository specifically for >build/test_run/jenkins_template scripts, separate from the main Apache >Cassandra source, but I'm wondering how others feel about these just >being in-tree. If you have an opinion one way or the other, I'm >interested. > >I think a separate git repo would be preferable since the contents could >be used for any version, regardless of the checked out C* branch or sha, >it won't require backporting, and it will be tiny. It may also allow a >lower barrier for contributors interested in helping with specifically >build/test infrastructure. > >Thanks! >Michael
