PS I don't want to be seen as filibustering here so, if people consider this to be a waste of time, I'm +1 on creating the list if the people who want to do the work want it. (Even though it's not my own inclination.)
Nick > On 4 Feb 2014, at 17:30, Nick North <nort...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
