fwiw, I'd like to see these decisions proposed, discussed and resolved on the mailing list. I appreciate it's slower than IRC, though. I thought using mailing lists was the mandated "Apache way" of doing these things, it certainly appears to be on other projects I follow (Lucene, for example). To restate, I didn't think it was a permitted option to use IRC to make important project decisions. Is there at least a transcript of the IRC decision(s)?
B. On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Robert Dionne <[email protected]> wrote: > My sense is that the approach to design in CouchDB is very bottoms up. I > applaud that and encourage it and wholeheartedly agree with Alan Perlis > about building software top down *except* the first time. We all know that > very little great software was ever built top down designed by boxologists > armed with UML diagrams. I think CouchDB is at a key point where it needs to > continue to be driven by a small core group of dedicated passionate > programmers. > > Please note that I'm in no way commenting on the make up of that group. > > I'm not very familiar with the ASF "process", excuse my ignorance, but I > find the IRC enormously useful and find mailing list threads can be too > unwieldy. > > I guess it's because I'm not a fan of top down design. I see the code itself > as the design, and the debugging, reworking, and documenting of the code as > the construction phase. > > Best regards, > > Bob > > Robert Dionne > Chief Bittwiddler > [email protected] > 203.231.9961 > > > > On Feb 5, 2009, at 6:14 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >> [sending second time, as I see my first is stuck in moderation, and I want >> to reply in a timely manner] >> >> Sure, ideally. >> >> But you can't have "everyone" together at the same time on IRC, where at >> the ASF, we define "everyone" to be, well, "everyone", not you and the 4 >> others on the PMC. >> >> I see 579 people on the user list. I see 294 people on the dev list. >> Just focusing on the dev list, that's 290 people, or 98.6% of people >> supposedly interested in CouchDB development, that had zero opportunity to >> see, review and participate in the discussion. Further, there's now zero >> chance that any future project participant can look back to understand >> design decision and philosophy. No institutional memory. Your goal, >> besides building a great software project, should be to get the community to >> the point where you can step back and do other things w/o material effect on >> the community, and that requires information like this to be somewhere >> accessible. >> >> And unlike Ted, I don't agree that a pointer to an IRC log is sufficient >> to represent a "done decision", and he may not have meant that anyway. >> Sure, I can see a chat starting on IRC about a topic, but I'd hope that one >> person would force the move from IRC to the mail list - and at that point, >> maybe posting a pointer to the *initial* discussion log would be useful. >> And after that, discussion is on the mail list. >> >> I think IRC logs are a very poor substitute to mail traffic (and yes, I >> grok the downside of async communications). A primary one reason that they >> are very "in the moment" - if you are in the conversation, it's easy to stay >> in, but after, when things cool and the context of the moment isn't there, >> it's neigh impossible. You also can't hit reply and quote a piece for >> others to see and discuss, further broadening the discussion. >> >> What got me engaged on this wasn't the decision itself (only because it >> was a secret decision), but -like Ted - the mode of operation. It seemed >> that a very dedicated, engaged and interested community member had to >> privately petition the PMC for redress on a technical decision that none of >> us had any awareness of, nor a chance to review. And IMO, from a guy that >> probably should be a committer and PMC member to boot! >> >> (By the way - from my count, not all PMC members are even on the PMC's >> private@ list, so I have *no clue* where project private discussion - like >> new committer candidates - are even discussed....) >> >> geir >> >> On Feb 5, 2009, at 2:11 AM, Damien Katz wrote: >> >>> Ideally yes, but real time communication with everyone together is damn >>> useful. >>> >>> -Damien >>> >>> On Feb 5, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Ted Leung wrote: >>> >>>> Uh, project decisions are supposed to be made in the public mailing >>>> lists... >>>> >>>> Ted >>>> >>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:51 PM, Damien Katz wrote: >>>> >>>>> This decision was discussed and made on IRC. >>>>> >>>>> -Damien >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> can you point me to a reference to where the PMC made this decision? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm interested in the subject for it's own sake, and I'm also >>>>>> interested in figuring out where decisions are made in this project, >>>>>> since I >>>>>> didn't see this one go by on a mail list. >>>>>> >>>>>> geir >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Damien Katz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Geir, there was a decision made by the PMCs to change the transaction >>>>>>> model to support partitioned databases. It is a change I am currently >>>>>>> working on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Damien >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and original question #2? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> geir >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Antony Blakey wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 05/02/2009, at 12:02 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1) where is this being forwarded from ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I sent it to the PMC. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Antony Blakey >>>>>>>>> ------------- >>>>>>>>> CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd >>>>>>>>> Ph: 0438 840 787 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A Buddhist walks up to a hot-dog stand and says, "Make me one with >>>>>>>>> everything". He then pays the vendor and asks for change. The vendor >>>>>>>>> says, >>>>>>>>> "Change comes from within". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
