I'm probably going to regret jumping into this, especially as I'm modifying my earlier view a bit, but how about getting some objectivity by basing a decision on whether to go ahead on the record of the other spin-off lists that have already been created? I have no idea how much traffic they have but, if they have a reasonable amount then spin-off lists can be said to work in CouchDb and the marketing one should go ahead; if not, then I suggest that they are not worth it, marketing should not go ahead, and consideration could be given to cancelling those lists.
I don't have a definition of "reasonable", but would say anything more than "tiny" is enough to justify the marketing list as we should be biased towards people who want to get on and do things. Nick > On 4 Feb 2014, at 16:52, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Benoit, it's not that you're "the bad guy" for disagreeing. The >> problem is when you filibuster people until they run out of energy. >> This has been a problem for a long time now. >> >> As we continue to grow CouchDB we need to get out of this mindset that >> unanimity is required to proceed on any action. You cannot scale a >> decision making process beyond a few people with that model. Our >> problems will only *worsen* unless we figure out way to solve this. >> >> You seem to be implying that my approach (which is not really my >> approach, but rather the Apache approach) is silencing or >> disempowering people. >> >> Quite the contrary. >> >> In fact, I have openly stated that anyone on this mailing list may >> raise a formal objection and I will immediately cease my current >> action. And I will then move this to a vote so that we can tally >> people's opinions. >> >> Nobody has done that yet. This is the 13th email now. And we're at 2549 >> words. >> >> In fact, what I am doing is empowering. >> >> Because I'm also stating that anyone else can do this. If you (dear >> reader) have a proposal, and you are worried that you're going to be >> filibustered off the mailing list, I invite you to share it with the >> group. >> >> And I invite you to solicit clear, unambiguous objections. Do not let >> people send email after email with concerns, and nitpicks, and >> disquitions on nomenclature. >> >> Remind people: so far I have not heard an objection. If someone has a >> formal objection to make, please make it. >> >>> I had no response to the reasons I have gave (a "I read you" is not a >> response) >> >> It is a response. I understand your concerns. What else do you want me >> to say? There's nothing else to discuss. I still think the mailing >> list is a good idea. I want to try it as an experiment, and am happy >> to report back to the PMC. >> >> >> Beeing verbose is sometimes more polite than a simple "wtf" . I could be > rather short if you prefer, acting accordingly to my culture, but I am not > sure it would be constructive. > > Anyway I did object. I did say why, I still object. The original thread > shows I am not the only one to think we don't need another list. It also > shows some want it. > > These are facts. Now you can choose to create or not this maliling-list. > > - benoit
