On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 15:07, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Mikeal Rogers <[email protected]> > wrote: >> This wasn't a statement about the website. >> >> Everyone in the project has their own vision of what it is suppose to be and >> very few are consistent with each other. If the leaders of the project don't >> have a clear vision for the project then I don't see how anyone else could, >> or how you would come up with a better vision in the website for the matter. >> > the good thing with a project is that multiple visions could achieve > to make a project. Do you really think that all people designing the > browser firefox share the same vision ? or the same for an http server > ? > > We are all working to extend couchdb in a way it can be useful . Of we > were really disagreeing on the way to develop couchdb we could just > leave. Some did. > > >> Being that we tentatively agree that there is no legal recourse it now falls >> on the project, and nobody else, to reduce the confusion that has come from >> the points you mention. > > s/we// not me at least > >> >> Do we really all think that people had a clear picture of what CouchDB was >> before Damien left the project? I won't argue that recent developments have >> worsened the problem but if you want to move forward and solve it you'll >> need to find the source and it's not a website or comments on the creator's >> blog, it's that a shared code base does not equal a shared vision and the >> project has always had a variety of different visions for what it should be. > > Hopefully enough shared vision, so people started to work all > together. And apparently damien's had a different too. I don't think > this is the problem here.
I agree. Lack of "shared vision" or some such thing is FUD. It may not be communicated clearly to the outside, but when I sit down and talk to everyone I know in the CouchDB community, my experience is that we all share many similar visions and ideas for the project. This communication is an altogether different problem than a company using a similar mark without mentioning Apache CouchDB. It would seem to me that, with or without legal obligation, CouchBase should make a concerted effort to clearly distance themselves from the project until the general consensus is that there is no confusion. I suspect that consensus is hard to achieve, though, so long as there are two database offerings with the word "couch" in them. Let this be a lesson to all of us, by the way, not to name your company after another project. It may be great while there's alignment, but terribly confusing when there isn't.
