Michelle, Robert and ermouth, I very much agree with ermouth that the old-fashioned email list is not for designers. I don't know why IRC and plain text email stick with developers, but they surely won't build a designer community effficiently. We need to use a social media platform suitable for proposal writing and discussion.
On the proposal development process, this is something I see holding the CouchDB community back. Even when processes are announced, they seem to be ignored. A very common break-down og communications is when discussions of process and issue mix. It is often worthwhile discussing a process separately and conclude before tackling the issues. Choosing a platform with features that intuitively support a process could be seen as a short-cut to a healthy process. What I would suggest is to use Medium.com <http://medium.com/> Each contributor is forced into developing an article and may illustrate as needed Comments are added inline and makes an excellent platform for discussion, keeping the comments aside and short, yet in context, with the original proposal in focus The Author of a proposal is in charge of the commenting on her/his proposal and may privately explain why some comments are not included The article can be developed over time - with its comments - rather than referring the readers an unreadable thread The contributions in the form of proposals (articles) under continuous development with comments from any Medium user would come together on a **publication** that would be curated by an assigned person. Here is an example of such a publication https://medium.com/user-experience-design-1 <https://medium.com/user-experience-design-1> Instead of establishing another mailing list, the Medium publication could then be referred to on the marketing list when new proposals arrive. johs > On 14. sep. 2015, at 01.10, ermouth <ermo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks, Robert. Good sincere questions. > >> "how can we attract enough people to make a possible design ML a thriving > place for many designers?" > > 0. ML *must* have markup. Can‘t imagine any article on design without > markup. > 1. Thrieving place means good content. I thought a minute and couldn‘t > remember, when I read _any_ special content about design+CouchDb last time. > Although there are several topics seen, I even have one article half > written ) > 2. Good modern thrieving place allows easy join and ability to comment and > interact. I fought 2 times trying to comment on articles issued before I > joined ML. Unsuccesfully. All these procedures with emails are completely > out of practice, they are unacceptable for designer community. It‘s ok for > devs – but not for designers. > > So welcome design@ ML, but may be some underlying platform changes first? I > don‘t know, are they possible or not although. > > ermouth > > 2015-09-12 22:08 GMT+03:00 Robert Kowalski <r...@kowalski.gd>: > >>> 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 >> >> That's a good point, sometimes I ask myself if our community is so small >> because it is so hard to make proposals and because of the type of feedback >> they receive. >> >> I sometimes get the feeling many proposals with good intentions are not >> getting much constructive feedback at some point from a few persons. There >> is almost always someone how says something negative that is not helpful >> for anyone, like: "that is impossible" or "that does not make sense to me" >> or "we don't attract enough people for that". >> >> It is important to note that there is usually no suggestion included how we >> could fix the problem instead. >> >> Taking a look at my proposals these responses don't help me to continue to >> try to make the project better. I am suddenly in the situation where I have >> to defend why something is not "impossible". These responses also don't >> encourage me to stick to the proposal I submitted. They also cause a lot of >> friction for me and make me sad, sometimes angry. >> >> When I would have read these feedbacks 1-2 years ago when I was very new to >> the project they would have made me go away from the project. >> >> In the future I would be super happy to hear questions or suggestions like >> "how can we attract enough people to make a possible design ML a thriving >> place for many designers?" instead - if someone thinks that this might be a >> problem. >> >> For proposals that I've written in the past months it would help me to work >> further on the proposed idea and motivate me to try to improve CouchDB and >> I think it would also apply to others. >> >> </offtopic> >> >> I am +1 on the design ML. I am also +1 on every experiment to make it >> easier for designers to participate in CouchDB. >> >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Alexander Shorin <kxe...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >>> -- >>> ,,,^..^,,, >>> >>
