hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Suzanne McIntosh <smcint...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] correcting abusive behavior on mailing lists was (Re: [DISCUSS] Multi-Cluster HBase Client)
Date Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:21:29 GMT
As long as Michael has been warned in the past, I vote for a three
month ban with option of a reduced one month ban if he is willing to
write an apology to Sean and the community.

> On Jul 1, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Shahab Yunus <shahab.yunus@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am a very new here and also my contribution to the mailing list has been
>> limited as well. I am not even a committer. But I have been following and
>> reading the mailing list for a while. So given that, I am taking the
>> liberty and chiming in my 2 cents. I don't profess or claim to read other
>> people's mind or comment on how they truly are or be patronizing. These are
>> just purely my subjective observations. No offense intended.
> Part of why we have these discussions on the open lists instead of on a
> committer-only or PMC-only list is that the open lists define the
> community. There's no need to caveat your feedback; your voice in this
> matters.
>> I totally understand where Andrew Purtell and Stack are coming from and
>> yes, Michael Segel has been in the past and in this particular email too,
>> be quite rude and dismissive. Unnecessarily so. At the same time, he is
>> clearly a smart guy when it comes to the topic of the mailing list. I also
>> realize that being smart or intelligent in one's field or area does not
>> give you a free pass to railroad or demean everyone else. But the thing is
>> that I don't think Michael is just a mean or rude person. Quite a few
>> times, he tries to temper his sarcastic barbs with a smiley and emoticons
>> to lighten the effect. Especially if they are of the personal nature or in
>> direct response to another poster (on the other hand he could be harsh when
>> talking about design decisions in general). I also have a belief (blind
>> faith as I of course have not met him, lol) that he is more than just a
>> smart guy in this area but, in general a sensible individual too and this
>> was mostly a misstep and the tone was not tempered at all(?)
> Tempering attacks on individuals does not mitigate their inappropriateness.
> Given that I agree that Michael is an intelligent person, there have been
> too many times that Michael has directly attacked individuals for me to
> believe it's a misstep. (I don't want this to become a review of terrible
> emails, but frankly the insult towards me in this case was mild compared to
> his past behavior i.e. towards Andrew.)
> There are lots of smart people in the world. HBase is lucky enough to have
> quite a few of them in our community. Even if we didn't, there's no level
> of insight that would excuse behaving poorly in the group. Community > Code
> is the core of the ASF and one sarcastic genius can't be a community.
>> Lastly having said all that, as this has never happened before here on the
>> list (if I remember correctly and as mentioned by Andrew), 'ban' is a
>> pretty severe measure. Moderation is better in this regard. I have been
>> moderating a totally unrelated web forum for few years now and things get
>> pretty rowdy there (to put it mildly) and thus ban is not used that
>> lightly, and in extreme cases.
> Without implying anything about your referenced web forum (since I
> obviously know nothing about it), in many cases spaces that are described
> as "rowdy" or "no holds barred" are thin masks for harassment and abuse. I
> do not want the HBase mailing lists to be described in those terms. I want
> it to be described as "nice" or "friendly". I would love "spirited" so long
> as it does not include "rude." There are plenty of folks who meet the
> standard of "spirited" without crossing the line into "rude" already, so I
> don't see why we need to err on the side of tolerating poor behavior.
> That said, I agree that banning is a severe measure. I hope we have enough
> moderators that consensus can be reached for that approach. If not, I'm in
> favor of a ban over not taking action.
>> Also, even if we don't want to moderate because of effort involved, why not
>> go with a 'warning' system. Give 2 warnings and then on the third strike
>> you are banned. Or start with temporary bans which could be extended after
>> 2-3 strikes.
> We always, always need to start with warnings. Personally, I prefer to
> include a pointer to the foundation code of conduct when letting someone
> know they've crossed a line. But including a citation of the code of
> conduct isn't strictly necessary and the warning need not come from a PMC
> member nor even a committer. Michael has been warned several times, so I
> don't think that's an issue here.
> --
> Sean

View raw message