From user-return-48957-apmail-hbase-user-archive=hbase.apache.org@hbase.apache.org Tue Jun 30 19:18:24 2015 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 139B81834A for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:18:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 47556 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jun 2015 19:18:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 47367 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jun 2015 19:18:20 -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 47292 invoked by uid 99); 30 Jun 2015 19:18:20 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:18:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id CCD0F1A642E; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:18:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.893 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.893 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.108, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O6uBNYB2UASq; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:18:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com (mail-ie0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id A10AE2310F; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:18:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iecuq6 with SMTP id uq6so19548865iec.2; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:18:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/Rwjb/PSTX1b6fvIYwAOAWyIlLNDcJopXzXzjwWBMo0=; b=eGDFIjHgkZqxvpv+YVMY3nynbTdBdbK69bsNAMe7POFhASjg9HBtzBV7GV/zcWb0UU +3vh56jNyiSFrZS4uZS83nKY08T3AI5KwxmzILXqMz1lEnXmWj3/U6nxnAXSsXK/apFT pPhf3RQCvE3BzR51PCP0p2RzrDo9c6PIqODwL5M3IlPzf2s3aoue5oAkY04V1Rv6kww0 kCXs9eX29MyAA+4hCWMnDJXJisxSE9wRyoELg8Oj6hcMdQTfkPgs+nRowCK9NlzXZ0NH Pccee9qb/OTIGPSGR6Q3YcVX8N9niT+SYu3rS5PrNYEz0plbKMsXC8SLEpjqS8VxhlrB X42A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.26.207 with SMTP id a198mr31547235ioa.5.1435691896425; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: saint.ack@gmail.com Received: by 10.36.47.21 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:18:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:18:16 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: QHDB2daxr8PL8yAfW6CDrKjor3E Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] correcting abusive behavior on mailing lists was (Re: [DISCUSS] Multi-Cluster HBase Client) From: Stack To: Hbase-User Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113feeb67e53700519c11142 --001a113feeb67e53700519c11142 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I volunteer to help moderate. St.Ack On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > (I took the liberty of moving us off of Ted's feature discussion thread) > > A three month ban sounds better than a permanent ban. But it still seems > likely to just result in the ban-ee walking away from teh community or > escalating. > > Would we consider enforcing moderation on posts for the three month perio= d > instead of an outright ban? > > It's more work for whomever has moderator rights on the mailing list, but > it provides a better feedback cycle for improved behavior. Presuming that= I > don't already have such access as a PMC member, I'd be willing to volunte= er > to help take on part of the burden. > > -Sean > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Andrew Purtell > wrote: > > > It was suggested privately that we try a temporary ban first, to be cle= ar > > that current behavior and communication is unacceptable and won't be > > tolerated further, yet allow for the possibility of a return to the > > community should the message be received. So let me amend my proposal -= a > > three month temporary ban. > > > > Also, the reason I am asking for public feedback before calling for a > vote > > is this would be the first time in the history of the project we would > take > > this very unfortunate step. It pains me personally but enough is enough= , > in > > my opinion. However, if you are not comfortable with that then please > speak > > up and I won't ask the PMC to vote on this. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Andrew Purtell > > wrote: > > > > > I've had enough and would like to ask the user and dev communities if > > they > > > would mind if we vote on a permanent ban of Michael Segal - any and a= ll > > > email accounts he may choose to set up - from all HBase mailing lists= . > > The > > > basic lack of courtesy and constant naysaying is corrosive. Nobody > trying > > > to volunteer their time here deserves his continuing abuse. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Michael Segel < > > michael_segel@hotmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Sean, > > >> > > >> You=E2=80=99re a developer, or just some higher level primate that p= ounds > code? > > >> > > >> I don=E2=80=99t want to embarrass you, but what do they teach in eng= ineering > > >> schools these days? > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hei= n > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > -- > Sean > --001a113feeb67e53700519c11142--