Okay, the notice period has passed, and despite this proposal
generating some discussion, there were no objections. I will therefor
proceed.
I will set up reminders to report to the community in 6 months and 12
months, as agreed.
On 5 February 2014 12:59, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
On 2/10/14, 8:39 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
Okay, the notice period has passed, and despite this proposal
generating some discussion, there were no objections. I will therefor
proceed.
Glad marketing@ is going to happen. We'll at least have a place to
discuss things without cluttering dev@/user@
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
I agree.
If erlang@ becomes the place where newbie questions about Erlang go
ignored, we should can the list.
It's already some months since its creation without much activity.
You requested examples:
On 5 February 2014 11:08, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
I agree.
If erlang@ becomes the place where newbie questions about Erlang go
ignored, we should can the list.
It's already some months since
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Andy Wenk a...@nms.de wrote:
On 5 February 2014 11:08, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
I agree.
If erlang@ becomes the place where newbie questions about Erlang go
On 5 February 2014 11:08, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote:
I see you already decided to go on this ml with some others people, so
there is no reason to continue any discussion on that topic anyway
Not sure if you just worded this poorly, or whether you misunderstand
how decision
Hi Noah and Benoit,
I want to drop a personal note here. I do agree with both your targets and
I am sure that both of you have very much more experience in this project
regarding communication and organization. But what I feel right here is,
that Benoit feels kind of unheard and Noah doesn't want
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Andy Wenk a...@nms.de wrote:
Hi Noah and Benoit,
I want to drop a personal note here. I do agree with both your targets and
I am sure that both of you have very much more experience in this project
regarding communication and organization. But what I feel
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Garren Smith gar...@apache.org wrote:
Benoit, Andy and Noah
Benoit has been the only one to raise an objection to this, so can we not
assume that everyone else is ok with this? If so can we move on.
no i am not:
Nick North nort...@gmail.com
11:34 AM (22
Let's talk about that hostility. This email thread is an example of
that hostility. And what appears to be a knee-jerk over-reaction on my
part is my learnt reaction to this hostility.
To make it clear: CouchDB is paralysed. The PMC is paralysed. And it
has been for a long time. It seems we are
+1 to all that, Noah. I can only imagine what this looks like to casual readers.
Few things require unanimity and this is not one of them.
The reason I’ve stayed quiet on the proposal is that while I don’t feel
strongly for it, I don’t feel strongly against it. It’s not my time or effort
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Also no formal ask about this mailing-list has been done in its own
thread. Which I request.
This is it. I've already done that. We're on that thread.
No you sent a notice about its creation. Which is a way different.
We came to an agreement on what [NOTICE] means in this thread:
http://markmail.org/message/o27dls6t3pqtxjew
The first paragraph in this thread was:
This is a notice that I am going to assume lazy consensus on the
proposal to create a marketing@ list. If you have a formal objection
to raise,
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Robert Samuel Newson rnew...@apache.orgwrote:
+1 to all that, Noah. I can only imagine what this looks like to casual
readers.
Few things require unanimity and this is not one of them.
The reason I've stayed quiet on the proposal is that while I don't feel
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
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
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
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Robert Samuel Newson rnew...@apache.orgwrote:
I don't see why the idea needs that much momentum behind it to get a pass
/ why there's so much inertia to do nothing new.
Try it, see what happens, mailing lists can always be deleted.
B.
I am not sure we
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:30 AM, 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
Nick, I don't think you are filibustering. You raise a good point that
has not come up yet.
Namely: what do we consider to be the success criteria of mailing
lists? And perhaps more importantly: what are the failure criteria?
Here's my attempt at answering those questions.
Success criteria:
-
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Nick, I don't think you are filibustering. You raise a good point that
has not come up yet.
actually I already raised it. And took the Erlang ml as an example of a
very little traffic list. The advocacy list on postgresql,
On 4 February 2014 11:45, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Success criteria:
- The mailing lists are occasionally used, and when questions are
posted there, replies are received.
- People who might not otherwise have been active start to become active.
Failure criteria:
- Mails
I agree.
If erlang@ becomes the place where newbie questions about Erlang go
ignored, we should can the list.
You requested examples:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-marketing/
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cloudstack-marketing/
Andy, how about two review dates?
On 4 February 2014 12:00, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
I agree.
If erlang@ becomes the place where newbie questions about Erlang go
ignored, we should can the list.
You requested examples:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-marketing/
+1
On 04 Feb 2014, at 1:04 PM, Andy Wenk a...@nms.de wrote:
On 4 February 2014 12:00, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
I agree.
If erlang@ becomes the place where newbie questions about Erlang go
ignored, we should can the list.
You requested examples:
Benoit,
This is a notice that I am going to assume lazy consensus on the
proposal to create a marketing@ list. If you have a formal objection
to raise, please do so now, and I will move this to a vote.
We have the following lists:
erlang@ - Created specifically to create safe space for people
Noah,
I wonder why I took the time to elaborate on that topic to see all my
concerns and *objections* properly ignored just because you don't care
about what does the others (which had a known and accepted success in their
strategy) or because you just disagree without giving much reason. I
I forgot to answer to one of your other concern, but I am totally agree
with the fact that contributors don't have to be a developer or whatever.
Which doesn't mean they should have a dedicated ml. Not developing and
following devs are 2 different things.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Benoit
Benoit,
Sorry if I gave you that impression. I read your mail in full, and
take on board all of your points. I just don't want to drag this out
into a needlessly long discussion that tires people out.
We do a lot of *talking* in this project. It would be nice if we could
make decisions quicker
29 matches
Mail list logo
