On Feb 6, 2009, at 10:27 AM, Damien Katz wrote:
On Feb 6, 2009, at 5:48 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Feb 5, 2009, at 2:50 PM, Chris Anderson wrote:
[SNIP]
The CouchDB project came into the Incubator with a lot of momentum
and
direction, and I consider part of my role with the project, to help
insulate Damien from the mailing-list chatter, especially when he's
deep in code. I acknowledge that could be a mistake as well, if it
leads to community misapprehension.
Seriously? The PMC chair has handlers to keep him isolated from
the community?
Must you be so combative? He's simply saying that other project
members prefer to spend time interacting with the community while I
focus on some deep coding issues. They know if they can handle stuff
there so I don't have to, I can move faster on the coding.
I don't mean to come across combative (and this is far from combative,
btw...), but the answer really surprised me. You are the PMC Chair,
charged by the Board of Directors of the Foundation to oversee the
health and life of the project. Having direct contact with the
community is part of the job.
The whole thing started because I closed a bug with a comment that
there must be an _upcoming discussion_.
I sympathize with Antony's predicament. He's been using bulk doc
transactions in a high-pressure environment, and it works for him.
It's understandable that he'd be upset, first hearing about the
patch
like this.
Had someone proposed the change on the dev list, let him
participate in a debate about the merits, and the change still
happened, there would be nothing to talk about.
geir
I'll post details of the proposed changes soon. In the meantime, I'm
still figuring it all out. I understand you don't like that I work
that way. But I can't work any other way when it comes to deep
coding issues. The act of coding itself ensures I have a completely
solid understanding of all aspects. I've thrown away on this project
10s of thousands of lines of codes that I only understood was wrong
once I had begun or finished implementing it. It's how I work and
generally, it works well.
I think you're missing my point.
I'm neither qualified or interested in debating the technical details
of the change. What I'm suggesting is talking about the change in
functionality, and what effects it has on users. IOW, to reverse the
decision to go forward with the change, and have a conversation about
what should be changed (at a high level), what the pros and cons are,
etc.
geir
-Damien
