Let's talk about that hostility. This email thread is an example of that hostility. And what appears to be a knee-jerk over-reaction on my part is my learnt reaction to this hostility.
To make it clear: CouchDB is paralysed. The PMC is paralysed. And it has been for a long time. It seems we are unable to make decisions. Part of that is due to this strange notion that everyone has to agree on everything all the time. Benoit, you specifically, I have noticed, will sometimes respond to a proposal and you can talk at great length about all of the various little bits that you do not like. But weeks later, when push comes to shove, and I ask you if you're going to block the proposal, you say no. And it transpires that all you wanted to do was air your disagreements. I think this is actually really very unhealthy for the project. And it tires me out. And reading this thread this morning, I actually felt like I wanted to quit the project. I just don't have the time for this sort of stuff any more. It is really draining me. This is one of the things that new people see happening on this list, and they think "oh wow fuck that." And we never see them again. I am serious. This happens. To restate: Benoit, I do not need your agreement to proceed with this proposal, or any proposal. And I reject the idea that the whole mailing list needs to hear all the little ways in which the proposal slightly annoys you. As a community member, you have the right to request a discussion. And you have every right to raise formal objections. But as a mailing list, we do not have let decision making be paralysed by needless discussion. We do not all need to be on the same page about something. We're never going to do anything as a project if we all have to feel positive about something before it can happen. So, to restate: 1. Benoit, I have read every email you have sent on this. I believe that I understand your concerns. I have taken them on board, and I still wish to proceed. I will report to the PMC on the status of the list, and believe that this change is reversible. 2. Please can we stop talking about this. If you want to formally object (i.e. block this action) please do so now. Please do so unambiguously. 3. If you object, I will hold a formal vote. This doesn't even need any more discussion. We can just tally the votes. If we get 3 +1 votes, and more +1 votes than -1 votes, I believe we can proceed. That's it. That's all we need to do. It's a mailing list. It doesn't need any more discussion. We don't need to have a conference call, or produce a white paper about it. And we certainly don't all need to like the idea. Our by-laws exist to enable speedy decision making. We ought to start using them in that fashion. I am sick of the endless debate. I am practically the only person on the project with enough patience to even engage in this crap. "Also no formal ask about this mailing-list has been done in its own thread. Which I request." This is it. I've already done that. We're on that thread. On 4 February 2014 09:29, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Andy Wenk <a...@nms.de> wrote: > >> Hi Noah and Benoit, >> >> I want to drop a personal note here. I do agree with both your targets and >> I am sure that both of you have very much more experience in this project >> regarding communication and organization. But what I feel right here is, >> that Benoit feels kind of unheard and Noah doesn't want to grow a >> discussion but want to make faster decisions what I think is very helpful. >> I think in this case here, you are both doing it wrong. Benoit, I think we >> discussed the point a lot and my last comment was to ask other's about >> their opinion (not willing to start a week long discussion). So we could >> come to a quick conclusion if people read the stuff and give a quick >> comment (what Nick did). Noah, I think you have been a little too fast. It >> would have been great to first explain the fact, that you want to make >> faster progress. Your last reply was clear and explaining. Your first >> answer to Benoit's comment was also for me a little ... let's say 'forcing'. >> >> Hey we are not made out of sugar. But let's find a good way to have >> further great discussions with the focus to make quick(er) decisions. And >> let's keep in mind, that we are not sitting next to each other and that we >> have to use this medium email to get our work done. >> >> I am looking forward to work on the "marketing" stuff soon. >> >> Cheers >> >> Andy >> >> >> > Andy, > > Thanks for your mail. > > So let it be clear, while I really don't think it's a good idea to have 2 > mailing lists, I already agreed to discuss it in a response of your mail. > Or to be more accurate, I think we should just launch a formal question > about that and collect the yes and no. Then someone will take the > responsibility to follow or not this consensus. > > Noah, I don't think that launching a new ml could be see as a test and we > could cancel it at any time is really productive. If the choose of a > distinct advocacy mailing-list is done by the community, then the > community and people that want to put efforts on it should focus on making > it a succes (more than what have already be done in other created mls). > > > I still don't see why you can start to see if it works on @dev anyway. If > @dev is show as an "hostile" ml, then there is already a problem. And it > should be solved first. You can advocate anything, but if the same people > goes your "safe" mailing-list it will be the same. I already elaborated > why. > > Last thing. I really wish we could just talk about advocacy. marketing is > just a way to advocate (and mainly for those who are thinking in term of > market shares). > > - benoit -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
