Thanks Jan,
good read. Now I know PMC is not related to PMS :)
It's interesting to know Apache was truly a collaborative project
from the beginning and this informs it's philosophy. So there are all
these roles and so forth, yet each PMC is allowed to make it's own
rules, within some guidelines.
I still think mailing list threads too unwieldy. For major design
changes it might be useful to post a one page summary on the WIKI, as
a strawman for the emails to focus on. Of course running code is also
an excellent design document.
regards,
Bob
Robert Dionne
Chief Programmer
[email protected]
203.231.9961
On Feb 5, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
On 5 Feb 2009, at 14:05, Robert Dionne wrote:
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.
Check out http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html for
more about The ASF Way/.
Cheers
Jan
--
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".
