incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Holsman <>
Subject Re: Fwd: Cassandra Open Source Hullabaloo / Project Management Proposal
Date Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:41:38 GMT
Ian Holsman wrote:
> wrote:
>> Mr. Ian Holsman
>> So let me get this straight you want to hijack the project from the
>> original developers ,
>> so that you can run it at a larger scale in YOUR company ??
> In a nutshell yes.
> The original developers have not been present on the list for at least 
> a month, where they answered 1-2 questions.
> The 'patches' and contribution area of the project has been little 
> better than dead since july. People have contributed patches, had them 
> integrated into the original source, only to have them disappear in 
> the next code that was 'thrown over' the wall from facebook. (one of 
> the core developers words not mine).
> The last time we have seen any code on the project was in September. 
> The have promised something 'coming soon' which will have features 
> facebook thinks is important. This is without any real consultation 
> done to the others on the list about those features.
> So overall I wouldn't call the project healthy, regardless of what the 
> original intentions were. I had approached Avinash, about this over 
> the last couple of months, where I heard that there was some internal 
> issues at facebook that had prevented them working on it. This is no 
> 'bomb' coming out of nowhere. They chose to ignore the message, and 
> the natural outcome of this.
> I was approached by some other developers who were equally as 
> frustrated by this as I was. They had already forked the code and had 
> started their own development trees which had integrated the patches 
> they wanted and moved on with their own work.
> I didn't like the direction I was seeing that heading (lots of people 
> working on their own) so I proposed we put this forth as a incubator 
> project so that the disparate developers can work on this together. 
> They agreed so I volunteered to write the proposal and get the thing 
> working.
>> So these are the ethics that you have learnt after being associated
>> with many so called cool open source projects,  why should anyone put
>> their blood and sweat into open source if scavengers like you are
>> circling the skies of open source.
> very poetic.
> I am doing this to save the technology from what I feel will be it's 
> own demise. you are free to call me a 'scavenger' if you wish, as I am 
> trying to take the best bits of a dead project and do something useful 
> with it.
> We could have just grabbed the idea (or go back to the original dynamo 
> idea that it was built from) and started from scratch, would that be 
> better than reusing the hard work already done?
> I don't bear any ill will towards the developers themselves, but to be 
> honest I think they are in between a rock and a hard place. I think 
> they would like to contribute more, but something inside their company 
> is holding them back, and maybe they don't have the full support of 
> their management.  Maybe they can use this proposal to help them get 
> more time to devote to the project so a fork might not be necessary, 
> maybe it will stop facebook from contributing other projects in the 
> future. I don't know. But right now I'm interested in reviving this 
> project.
> At the moment this is just a proposal. The choice on whether the fork 
> will be accepted into incubation will be made by developers like 
> yourself, and they will use their own ethics and judgement on what is 
> best.
> but to reiterate.
> - no code in at least 3 months.
> - patches from the community not accepted, or accepted and vanished in 
> the 'development' code branch
> - decisions done behind closed doors, with little or no interaction 
> with the community
> - little or no communication by the developers over the last month or two
> - code and features being 'thrown' to the open source community.
> These are my reasons for a fork.
> Ian Holsman.
>> On Nov 15, 2:05 pm, Ian Holsman <> wrote:
>>> John Ryan wrote:
>>>> Here is a good suggestion from Jesse that Avinash forwarded to me.
>>> Hi John.
>>> Firstly  the name change was done out of respect, and to make sure that
>>> people don't get confused if/when the original cassandra becomes 
>>> viable.
>>> There was no intention to not to acknowledge the people and company 
>>> that
>>> originally donated the code. Have a look at the various graduated 
>>> apache
>>> projects for evidence of that.
>>> Secondly if you guys think this proposal will work, go for it. But to
>>> me, I don't see how this addresses any of the fundamental problems
>>> occurring here.
>>> The main thing you need (imho) for a successful open source project is
>>> ownership by the community of all aspects of the project so that it can
>>> survive companies pulling out when their needs change.
>>> What is being proposed here is that another group (SCADS in this case)
>>> takes control of the open source side of  a project, with the promise
>>> that they will merge the next code dump if it happens. In my eyes this
>>> still puts the non-facebook people into a 2nd class citizen role. It
>>> still has the core issue that there are 2 codebases, and major design
>>> changes will happen behind closed doors, like they are currently
>>> happening today. If/When Avinash/Prashant get a new manager, get a new
>>> role in another group, they leave facebook, facebook gets bought, or
>>> facebook goes under (they still aren't revenue positive) then we would
>>> be without the only 2 people who know the system. I don't see this
>>> changing with the proposal below.
>>> and John on a personal note, I have no interest in having my name
>>> associated with yet another cool technology. My name is associated with
>>> way too many as it is. My main interest is to be able to use this at my
>>> work (which would be at a scale larger than facebook's).
>>> Regards
>>> Ian
>>> ps. I'm mailing the proposal in about 10m.. Your also welcome to voice
>>> your concerns there as well.
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: *Jesse Trutna* <
>>>> <>>
>>>> Date: Nov 15, 2008 5:24 AM
>>>> Subject: Cassandra Open Source Hullabaloo / Project Management 
>>>> Proposal
>>>> To: Avinash Lakshman <
>>>> <>>, Prashant Malik <
>>>> <>>
>>>>       Blech, politics.
>>>>       I've been following a bit of the hubbabaloo at the 
>>>> google-code site,
>>>> thought maybe I could offer a solution...  Basically, it seems like
>>>> the main complaint is that there isn't enough interaction from you
>>>> guys, but you don't really have the time to be packaging things up all
>>>> the time for the community.  At the same time, we on the SCADS team
>>>> would love to get more hands on the problem, which is something the
>>>> open-source community can provide.  I can't speak for the whole team,
>>>> but in order not to lose that community I'd be willing to do the
>>>> community interaction - google code babysitting, if that'd make things
>>>> easier on you guys.  I'd probably bring in some of the OSS guys, try
>>>> to build enough momentum around the project so that when the next big
>>>> code release comes out there's enough motivation to merge with the new
>>>> changes.  I.e., let the community play around with this version, built
>>>> tools, etc until you guys are ready with the next one.
>>>>       Or, if you guys want to maintain control of that repository, 
>>>> perhaps a
>>>> pseudo-sanctioned fork, a.k.a "Berkeley Cassandra" that gives credit
>>>> were credits is due.  The existing site could point people to the
>>>> academic version until the next revision of the your work comes out.
>>>>  At that point we'd either merge or have have two related main
>>>> branches, the Facebook version and the academic/oss version with
>>>> hopefully some productive cross-germination between them.
>>>>       It just seems like what's going to happen is the community is 
>>>> going to
>>>> fork to a new project with a new name, which doesn't properly credit
>>>> you guys for all the hard work you've done or Facebook for releasing
>>>> it.  Then, down the pipe, you'll release the next version and we'll
>>>> have two versions: One that's got momentum and has all the operational
>>>> burrs worked out (which is what the OSS community is good at) and the
>>>> version with a bunch of powerful, new features that works really well
>>>> (as long as your using it for Facebooks use cases on a similar
>>>> infrastructure.) i.e. broad and shallow vs narrow and deep.
>>>>       Anyway, let me know what you think, hopefully things won't 
>>>> boil out of
>>>> control in the mean time.  :)
>>>>       Thanks,
>>>> Jesse Trutna
>> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> Groups "Cassandra Developers" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message