Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A9321807D for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 01:36:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 22676 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2015 01:36:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 22520 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2015 01:36:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 22499 invoked by uid 99); 1 Jul 2015 01:36:41 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Jul 2015 01:36:41 +0000 Received: from mail-vn0-f54.google.com (mail-vn0-f54.google.com [209.85.216.54]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 6C4781A02A6; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 01:36:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vnbg1 with SMTP id g1so3820953vnb.7; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:36:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.52.129.100 with SMTP id nv4mr23212414vdb.43.1435714600890; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:36:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.150.202 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:36:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <82332905.2879891.1435712329311.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Enis_S=C3=B6ztutar?= Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:36:21 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] correcting abusive behavior on mailing lists was (Re: [DISCUSS] Multi-Cluster HBase Client) To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" Cc: lars hofhansl , Hbase-User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec52bece1c8f9960519c65a43 --bcaec52bece1c8f9960519c65a43 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I've just saw the thread in question, and I also feel that an action has to be taken because this type of behavior is unacceptable. It is also not the first strike if my memory serves me. Moderation is fine if we have voluteers. Otherwise +1 for a temporary ban. Enis On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:58 PM, lars hofhansl wrote: > > > Moderating is better than outright banning, I think.While Micheal is > > sometimes infuriating, he's also funny and smart. > > Can we have a group of moderators? I'd volunteer, but not if I'm the only > > one. > > > > > So far we have both you and I willing to volunteer. I'm comfortable at two > moderators if you are, though I'd certainly welcome additional. > > > -- > Sean > --bcaec52bece1c8f9960519c65a43--