Hi,
I like the idea of RFC's and agree with Joan that they should help with the
actual (and perceived) gaps in cooperation from large corporate vendors.
I would like to see a mandatory "Security Considerations" section added to the
template. Not every RFC will have anything to say on the
Hi Paul,
As you know, I try my hardest to post well-researched comments to this
mailing list, and this time I fell short of that. Please accept my
apologies. Let me try and re-frame the problem, and respond to your
criticisms.
My point is: we need more public design discussions and review, and
a GH Issue monitoring bot?
-Joan
- Original Message -
> From: "Jan Lehnardt"
> To: "CouchDB Developers" , "Joan Touzet"
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 5:33:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Proposed new RFC process
>
> I’m fa
I’m favour of all that’s outlined here. Thanks for getting this written up,
Joan!
Best
Jan
—
> On 5. Feb 2019, at 19:27, Joan Touzet wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> One thing that has plagued the CouchDB project for a while is the
> introduction of new features without much discussion prior to
Thank you Joan for proposing this process. It looks great.
> For me, the question that remains is: at what point do we REQUIRE the
> proposed RFC process to be followed? When is a change "substantial?" And
> I think that it may be sufficient at this point to leave it grey-area,
> with the PMC
Hi everyone,
One thing that has plagued the CouchDB project for a while is the
introduction of new features without much discussion prior to the
feature landing.
To put all the cards on the table: it is good that IBM/Cloudant have
been benevolent and have contributed significant new
