Re: NewBie Question ~ Book for Cassandra
Looking at that thread, I'm surprised you didn't call Dave out as well, that attitude did no one any favours. >Because lets all face the >facts here, no one "likes" writing drivers and documentation, and I have >done both for this project. That's clearly incorrect, I (and I suspect other people) like writing docs because it means people can use your tools in a much easier manner than looking through the code or unit tests. Tooling can be a burden but it doesn't excuse not writing docs, even if it becomes a PMC type rule for committers to commit Docs for new features like they should be committing unit tests. At least it improves what is shipped with the Apache project in question. Tom On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Chris Mattmann wrote: > Hi Russell, > > [CC/board@, board members may want to join the > Apache Cassandra lists for specifics and further > engagement] > > Multiple things that need to be addressed below, but TL;DR: > > 1. I have asked the Apache Cassandra PMC, and its chair, to provide > a detailed description on how the project *isn’t* controlled by an > external entity in its next monthly board report. The below further > re-enforces the control. Further, it re-enforces the vitriol and > name calling attitude when questioned and when someone suggests > pointing to the Apache documentation and making it better as a first > step. I plan on making it very loudly known at our next board meeting > that something is awry. CC/board@ ahead of time on that. > > 2. You don’t seem to understand Apache. This is unfortunate. I > went to go look you up and see if you are a PMC member for Apache > Cassandra. Funny enough, the main page doesn’t even link to the PMC > (I couldn’t find a direct link). This isn’t even correct with respect > to Apache branding guidelines here at the ASF. Shane, would you > like to comment here? For an FYI to everyone, see: > http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs.html > > After a Google Search, I found this page: > https://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/Committers > > That looks way out of date. Luckily there is the project.apache.org > ASF page: https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?cassandra > > Which indicates you aren’t a committer or PMC member of the project. > This is unfortunate. If you wrote a book for projects I work on, I > would have hopefully long before and along the way got involved in > the community, and encouraged you to contribute to the *core effort > here at the ASF* and took you on the path towards becoming a PMC > member in the *Apache project that is the core effort*. > > In short, I can see why you don’t understand Apache. It’s likely > due to the fact that the Apache Cassandra PMC doesn’t seem to get > it either. If they did, they would have worked to explain it to > you. More on that later. > > 3. The fact that you think “the companies that I try to [sic] vilify > are the *future* of projects like this” isn’t just a statement that > indicates you don’t get Apache. That someone in the community (which > includes you even though you aren’t a committer or on the PMC) would > think the “companies” are the “future” of any ASF project is just > way way bad. Like way bad. Off the rails bad. We are *individuals* > here, not companies. > > 4. You state you have wrote drivers and documentation for this > project. Yet you aren’t a PMC member or committer at the ASF. Ever > scratch your head and wonder why? By itself, again, sometimes there > are reasons for this. Taken in context, there is something REALLY > wrong here. > > Now, more specific replies inline below. Jonathan and PMC members > for Apache Cassandra. Please take time to explain in your report > what’s going on. I’m hopeful with mentorship and guidance and time > this can be addressed but right now, not really happy with what > I’m seeing. > > > > ** > Specific comments > > On 6/11/16, 9:48 AM, "Russell Bradberry" wrote: > > >I respectfully disagree. "Newbies" should be pointed in the direction > that > >will ensure the highest possibility of their success with the product. > >This is the best decision for the project, regardless of where the > >documentation may reside. > > While I agree with pointing Newbies to the point where > there is the best documentation - I don’t agree that place > should be outside of the Apache project. > > > > >As one of the authors of an early book on Cassandra, the reason we wrote > it > >was because the ASF documentation was abysmal. > > What did you do to try and counteract this? Did you attempt to submit > documentation patches and/or to submit documentation that would address > that? > > > Now I am happy to say that > >the book I wrote is obsolete, not just because it was written against an > >early version of Cassandra, but because the external documentation is so > >thorough the need for a book to be written in no longer present. > > I had no problem with your statement until you put “external” before the > word “documentation”. > > > > >I
Re: DataStax role in Cassandra and the ASF
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 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 > > 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 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" 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/splatch/aebe4ad4d127922642bee0dc9a8b1ec1 >> >> I don’t want to bring now these topics back and disscuss technical >> stuff over again. It happened
