On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
On 7 May 2013 20:07, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote:
Lazy consensus give this false idea that because no-one objected in
time then it's OK to process.
This is not a false idea. This principal sites at the very
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
On 9 May 2013 01:02, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
I would be happy to use the subject tag PROPOSAL when lazy consensus is
being used, to separate these threads out from general DISCUSS threads.
Please note,
On 05/07/2013 01:34 PM, Robert Newson wrote:
Hi All,
I propose to merge in the following work,
https://github.com/rnewson/**couchdb/tree/nebraska-merge-**candidate
https://github.com/rnewson/couchdb/tree/nebraska-merge-candidateto
the official Apache CouchDB repository to a new
On 1 May 2013 20:50, Paul Okstad poks...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello dev team,
I'm following up on a brief discussion I had with the CouchDB twitter
account (my handle: @pokstad) regarding the official ASF wiki for CouchDB.
I'm a CouchDB evangelist in both my personal projects and at my full
Anyway, I'm really excited about CouchDB and I really want to contribute to
the global documentation out there, but MoinMoin ain't making it easy. I
really think that a move to a better documentation tool could be a huge
push to CouchDB's adoption. Thanks for listening.
Have you seen the new
I'm definitely in favour of building up the docs/ effort to replace
the wiki as *the* place to find out how couchdb works. I can't quite
picture what will be left of the wiki when that's achieved. I guess
the pages where we list contributors and couchdb-based projects, but
not too much else.
I'm
+1
+1 for opening a branch with it. I think I have some questions but
will put them as separate thread.
Thanks for all this code :)
- benoit
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Robert Newson rnew...@apache.org wrote:
Hi All,
I propose to merge in the following work,
On 9 May 2013 07:10, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote:
Lazy consensus aren't here to obtain a real consensus.
You are incorrect.
Lazy consensus _is_ consensus, and is an important part of our decision
making process at Apache.
To quote a very good page on how we use lazy consensus
On 9 May 2013 03:59, Randall Leeds randall.le...@gmail.com wrote:
However, to restate my position, DISCUSS had a suggestion to me that
something
warranted discussion. Your recent threads on workflow all were great. We
should
circle back and conclude them. When something warrants good
This is amazing work. Huge +1 from me!
On 7 May 2013 21:34, Robert Newson rnew...@apache.org wrote:
Hi All,
I propose to merge in the following work,
https://github.com/rnewson/couchdb/tree/nebraska-merge-candidate to
the official Apache CouchDB repository to a new branch (i.e, *not*
If by go back to a more natural process you mean go back to the broken
permission culture we had for the last three years where people were so
intimidated by the project leads that they gave up bothering to contribute
then no. A thousand times no.
Not a thousand, but a million times.
Many things
I'm dyslexic. My spelling is a stochastic process. ;)
On 9 May 2013 17:07, Robert Newson rnew...@apache.org wrote:
If by go back to a more natural process you mean go back to the broken
permission culture we had for the last three years where people were so
intimidated by the project leads
I was tempted to answer point by point to this mail but I gave up. To
summarise: you're strongly and offensively disagreeing with me. And I
strongly disagree with a lot of them.
Now still. You're saying that I consider lazy consensus invalid. I am
not. Nowhere in my mail I considered them as
Thanks for chairing this, Alex! :)
On 8 May 2013 20:45, Alexander Shorin kxe...@gmail.com wrote:
Members present: rnewson, Kxepal
Meeting summary:
1. Preface
2. teh merge
a. http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@couchdb.apache.org/msg25522.html
(Kxepal,
15 matches
Mail list logo
