On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Michelle Phung <michel...@apache.org> wrote: > You didn’t say it like that exactly in irc :P but you did allude to it :) > > I thought you meant that if I opened a design@ML that people would use it > sparsely as they used the www@ML sparsely. :)
Then I was not clear (: Sorry. > We could reuse www@ but its a narrow label for all things design. > Although www@ML as a name is not very descriptive as to what is being > discussed (for new people). > > I’d like the design@ML to be an umbrella for design discussions. and people > know right away its about design. > It will be like a door for designers to come to couchDB through. Since our design topics are www-related, it makes hard to decide where to start topic about some, let's say, Fauxton feature. On one hand, it's www-related, however, without design bits users cannot use it. Split discussion over two ML's sounds as overkill. While idea is good and clear, I don't believe that we can attract enough people to have this ML alive. Suddenly, our active part of community is quite small and here question lays in dimension to make their life easy and to not loose even them. There is a reason to create a new ML to isolate some specific discussions from the others (like erlang talks from frontend). But you want to fragmentate fronend topics while existed ML is not much active. I'm fine with new ML, but I don't think it's reasonable to have it now. -- ,,,^..^,,,
