hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amandeep Khurana <ama...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] correcting abusive behavior on mailing lists was (Re: [DISCUSS] Multi-Cluster HBase Client)
Date Wed, 01 Jul 2015 15:11:55 GMT
I've seen other threads like this from Michael in the past. While I ignore
them when they show up, it is certainly off putting to the community
members and discourage open discussions and sharing of ideas. Some people
might not understand the problems as well as others or might have
completely different perspectives. We want to take them along and help them
ramp up and use the software, not discourage them entirely. We want to grow
as a community and improve as a software so ideas and contributions in any
way form or shape are healthy and should be welcomed.

In this case, I vote for a temporary ban. That's for 2 reasons:

1. We have already spent enough time and mental energy discussing this
topic that's not directly relevant to the project or technology. It's not a
healthy use of the community members' time. Moderation will only need more
time from folks here. I moderated a forum in the past and there were times
where I couldn't act in a timely manner and threads slipped.

2. This isn't the first time we have had something like from Michael. He
has been warned in the past.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Suzanne McIntosh <smcintosh@cloudera.com>

> 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

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message