Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGHyZ6+vCBeYSPSpm8n6mHYuV-7Pe9ezB3iuVAPxBAXxW8Wc+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <75F348B6-53F4-4626-AC39-D24A629FBE70@gmail.com>
	<509381228.65871.1435720089079.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<CAKGK8eSnJM=jBCrT-NDhiE7jqPsAQEqikvLqtzSv5u-x0iojdw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPcDmSs-NVq7EXL=eRyhYuk24OpADGeBAcBmoJa5pE-KEq-Trw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+RK=_CtZNEEjCQdTvv9Fo0XNHnTfeoEF9dkmYmMQt6P36Zx8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGHyZ6J6M42Tshd9ZAqdGF7=rDXiB_EHQqpR3iLYky0wbtd6bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGHyZ6+vCBeYSPSpm8n6mHYuV-7Pe9ezB3iuVAPxBAXxW8Wc+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 14:27:10 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CA+RK=_A0V2G1xBMm=APPDGUjC_ZEvEmPCcshGXf=6gUQV=yjpg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] correcting abusive behavior on mailing lists was (Re:
 [DISCUSS] Multi-Cluster HBase Client)
From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>,
 "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d3e02093ceb0519ff382d

--001a113d3e02093ceb0519ff382d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

It looks like the discussion is settling down and we have a consensus on
the course of action of a three month temporary ban from the project
mailing lists. If you feel that is not correct please say so, otherwise on
Monday the PMC will begin that process.

Going forward I think we should have a documented policy. We've never
needed this before but now that has changed. Below is a strawman for your
kind  consideration. I will file a JIRA with a site update proposal next
week if someone doesn't beat me to it.

>>>

We expect participants in discussions on the HBase project mailing lists,
IRC channels, and JIRA issues to abide by the Apache Software Foundation's
Code of Conduct (http://apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html).

If you feel there had been a violation of this code, please point out your
concerns publicly in a friendly and matter of fact manner.
Nonverbal communication is prone to misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
Everyone has bad days and sometimes says things they regret later. Someone
else's communication style may clash with yours, but the difference can be
amicably resolved. After pointing out your concerns please be generous upon
receiving an apology.

Should there be repeated instances of code of conduct violations, or if
there is an obvious and severe violation, the HBase PMC may become
involved. When this happens the PMC will openly discuss the matter, most
likely on the dev@hbase mailing list, and will consider taking the
following actions, in order, if there is a continuing problem with an
individual:

1. A friendly off-list warning;

2. A friendly public warning, if the communication at issue was on list,
otherwise another off-list warning;

3. A three month suspension from the public mailing lists and possible
operator action in the IRC channels.

4. A permanent ban from the public mailing lists, IRC channels, and project
JIRA.

For flagrant violations requiring a firm response the PMC may opt to skip
early steps. No action will be taken before public discussion leading
to consensus or a successful majority vote.

<<<


On Wednesday, July 1, 2015, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Due to an off list request, let me clarify my previous email. Apologies if
> this is overly detailed, but I'm presuming folks on user@ don't often deal
> with ASF mechanics.
>
> For those on user@hbase, Andrew asked on a sub-thread that mistakenly went
> only to dev@hbase if those advocating for moderating Michael S's email
> would we would vote against a 3 month ban if Andrew called a vote. My
> response copied user@hbase back in and that's why you may have a gap in
> messages.
>
> In ASF terminology, votes are one of
>
> * <0 against or a veto depending on what kind of vote has been called,
> usually "-1"
> * 0 either neutral or too conflicted to state a for/against preference,
> usually has some concerns attached
> * >0 in favor, usually "+1"
>
> I precisely said "I would not vote -1" because I would not take a stance
> that might cause the vote to fail, but I would not vote in favor. I very
> likely would vote "-0 I think moderating his messages will suffice, but
> acknowledge the community does not want that."
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > I would not vote -1 on a 3 month ban. It doesn't look like we have
> > consensus around moderating messages.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> For those who are advocating moderation, would you be opposed if I
> propose
> >> a 3 month ban for a vote? If you are not opposed, then we should be able
> >> to
> >> achieve consensus here without needing a vote to take place.
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Sean
>


-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

--001a113d3e02093ceb0519ff382d--