I'll be more than happy to, after the 1.2 release is out, as Dave mentioned we should all table it for now. Remind me then -- Bob
On Mar 15, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Noah Slater wrote: > Bob, > > Can you explain your remarks? > > Thanks, > > > On 15 Mar 2012, at 17:28, Bob Dionne <dio...@dionne-associates.com> wrote: > >> Noah, >> >> Sorry, but I disagree. I don't think your experiment worked well at all and >> I think the approach you are taking is going to alienate people. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Bob >> >> On Mar 15, 2012, at 11:52 AM, Noah Slater wrote: >> >>> Paul, >>> >>> How long before we can land COUCHDB-1426? >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Paul Davis >>> <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>> Nope. Though that was a bit silly of us. >>> >>> >>> Why? >>> >>> It was something of an experiment. And one that turned out quite well, I >>> think. I figured that if one person was enabled to drive each issue, and >>> had the say in what was done, etc, then we might see quicker progress on >>> them. There is a certain amount of pride that comes with having your name >>> attached to something, and being deputised to make something happen. >>> >>> Out of four issues, we saw three of them get fixed very quickly. One of >>> them had looked almost insurmountable before this organisations. I >>> think Bob, Bob, and Jan, and everyone who helped then, did a fantastic job, >>> and I was proud to see the community come together in the way that it did. >>> We dropped the ball on COUCHDB-1426, but it's not a big deal. All I am >>> trying to do is be an annoying gadfly who won't shut up about it. And I >>> will continue to annoy and pester people until we can ship. Lighting fires >>> under people's arses. If that costs me some browny points in the process, >>> then so be it. We need to ship. We HAVE to ship. >>> >>> Why? >>> >>> Because we haven't made a major version release for almost a year. As a >>> project, we have slowed down a lot in recent years. Some of this is >>> completely fine. We're a database, after-all, and one that has a fetish for >>> correctness. But on the other hand, there have been a number of times where >>> tickets are debated back and forth in JIRA, loose steam, and then languish. >>> There is a fine line between being cautious, and allowing permission >>> culture to let tickets atrophy. >>> >>> I think we all know the misfortunes that have befallen the project >>> recently. We've had Ubuntu dropping CouchDB, we've had Damien dropping >>> CouchDB, we've had Couchbase confusing our users, we've had Mikeal publicly >>> deriding us, and more recently we've had NPM's security boo boo cast a >>> spotlight on us. Most of these things are not our fault. (The only one I >>> think that says anything about the project is Mikeal's posts, which I have >>> taken to heart a little bit.) But regardless, from the outside perspective, >>> people have been looking in and asking themselves, is it all over for >>> CouchDB? This is, perhaps, the most important moment in CouchDB's history. >>> It's do or die, and getting 1.2.0 out is the first step on a long, and >>> hopefully enjoyable, path towards a better, stronger, project. >>> >>> How long before we can land COUCHDB-1426? :) >>> >>> I do understand your passion and I'm glad to have you as part of the >>>> community. My peevishness here is that we're being more reactive >>>> rather than proactive in our approach to addressing the issues at >>>> hand. For instance, what takes us so long to release? Mostly the fact >>>> that master/trunk/maintenance-branches are never in a consistent state >>>> ready for release. >>> >>> >>> Well, in this instance, I have been trying to release for two weeks, and >>> what is slowing me down is slow progress on release blockers. This is This >>> has nothing to do with branch maintenance. COUCHDB-1426 is slowing us down. >>> >>> How long before we can land COUCHDB-1426? :P >>> >>> But maybe you meant in general. As an ongoing thing. I do not agree that >>> our problems are entirely technical in nature. I like that you're >>> approaching it from a technical angle, and I actually agree with everything >>> you say from hereon in. But I am approaching from another angle myself. >>> Which is good, really. Because there are many things we could be doing to >>> fix the project. >>> >>> So, after this release, there are three major community things that I want >>> to try out. I have been collecting my ideas on them, and the occasional bit >>> of private feedback for the best part of a month. >>> >>> The first the concept of teams. A team is like a bigger, more formal >>> version of what we did for the 1.2.0 blockers. The teams I have thought of >>> so far are Community, JIRA, Wiki, Documentation, QA, Packaging, Core, >>> Mobile, Platform, and Release. The idea being that you don't have to be a >>> committer to be on a team. Anyone could be on the JIRA >>> Team, triaging tickets. You, Paul, would almost certainly be on the QA, >>> Packaging, Release, and Development teams. Each team would have a lead, and >>> the lead would be responsible for driving and communicating progress. >>> >>> The second is the concept of a heartbeat. This would be a weekly and >>> monthly checklist of items, and activities, much like the release procedure >>> or the test procedure. Think of it like a set of cron jobs for the project. >>> The PMC would be responsible for carrying out these tasks. The main purpose >>> of the heartbeat will be to keep momentum, sort out any issues before they >>> stagnate, provide steerage, and collect feedback from all of the team >>> leads, and to communicate progress to the community and the board. >>> >>> The third is a more well defined roadmap process. Now, more than ever, >>> CouchDB needs some product management. Which in my view, is about enabling >>> and documenting a unified vision of the product, being a user advocate, as >>> well as working with the release team to enable faster, >>> more iterative releases. Like a meta-release procedure. What do we want in >>> our next major revision? What should we leave out? When should we aim for? >>> What should we do about our maintenance versions. That sort of stuff. >>> >>> These are the main ideas I have at the moment. I welcome the community's >>> feedback on them, though this thread, or this moment, is not the best time >>> for it. I only mention them now to illustrate that while you, Paul, might >>> be thinking about the engineering challenges in front of you, I am thinking >>> about the community challenges in front of us. And I think that's just >>> smashing. >>> >>> >>>> If you really want to get super serious in showing >>>> the world the awesomeness then come join me in a stand for being a >>>> better software project (engineering wise. I personally think our >>>> community is best by lots). >>>> >>> >>> I won't comment on all of your points, because I agree with them. I have >>> actually made a note to myself to revisit your email after the release, so >>> that we can start to talk about where these items fit in on the roadmap. >>> (See my above note about wanting an actual roadmap process.) Unfortunately, >>> a lot of the stuff I want to do only makes sense after the 1.2.0 release. I >>> want to focus all my energy on getting this shipped, and I want everyone >>> else to do the same. Once this is out of the door, I think there are a lot >>> of conversations that need to happen, and a lot of things that need to >>> change. But let's get this shipped. This is yet another reason why I feel a >>> fire under my arse, and why I am trying to light fires under other people's >>> arses. We have SO much to do, but we need to ship this puppy first. >>> >>> How long before we can land COUCHDB-1426? :D >>> >>> >>>> 7. Fix our fucking website to not suck balls (yes, already in motion >>>> if we accept that a body in motion remains in motion until acted upon >>>> by an outside round house kick to the face). >>>> >>> >>> I have something up my sleeve here, but I'm not prepared to act on it until >>> we ship 1.2.0. My intention is to roll out the new version of the site >>> along with the 1.2.0 release announcement. Yet another reason why I have >>> such a sense of urgency. You have no idea how freaking awesome our new site >>> looks. But I am waiting on 1.2.0 before I'm prepared to land it. (I am >>> purposefully not sharing it, because that will kill it, like it has killed >>> every other re-design attempt. I am being bold, and I will ask for >>> forgiveness if I've made a mistake. But trust me it is awesome, and if you >>> completely hate it, you can veto and roll it back afterwards.) >>> >>> How long before we can land COUCHDB-1426? ^__^ >>> >>> But above all else, lets be true to us. This project has prided itself >>>> on correctness above all else since I've been involved. >>> >>> >>> Agreed. But let's light some fires up some people's arses. I want us all to >>> have the same sense of urgency. >>> >>> >>>> I can't resist the Zen of CouchDB: >>>> >>>> 1. Relax >>>> 2. Everyone is welcome >>>> 3. Your data is safe with us >>>> 4. Its simpler than you think >>>> 5. Fast is good >>>> 6. But safe and correct are best >>>> 7. Advanced uses should be supported >>>> 8. But not at the expense of core simplicity >>>> 9. Always respect existing standards >>>> 10. Unless those standards are absurd >>>> >>> >>> I like this. I may put it on the wiki later. >>> >>> >>>> So in closing, I know your fever, but chill, Winston. They know its us. >>>> >>> >>> I'll chill when 1.2.0 is shipped. >>> >>> How long before we can land COUCHDB-1426? ;) >>
