Okay, here are some rough thoughts. Why?
- We believe that distributed data should be easy How? - Painless multi-master replication - Effortless clustering and sharding - Co-location of data, queries, and views - Deep browser and platform integration - Built of the Web What? - Erlang - HTTP - JSON - JavaScript - MapReduce (That last list could go on, and on, and on...) Anyway. This is just a rough sketch of the sort of hierarchy I am thinking about. Whatever this ends up looking like, I think this is how we should talk about CouchDB. This structure could be a template for anything. A talk, a sales pitch, the homepage itself. The important thing is that we start from "why?" and we build up from foundations. On 24 July 2013 13:15, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm trying to imagine what our "I have a dream" speech would be like for > CouchDB. If we were the Wright brothers, we might stand up and say "I have > a dream that one day man will fly." We might say, "I have a dream that > distributed data will be easy." (I mean, that about covers it, right? > Doesn't have to be complex. The hard part is making sure we actually focus > in on the root dream we all have.) > > Jan mentioned a few months ago that CouchDB almost wants to be the Git, > for databases. What is Git? What would Git's "dream" be? I can imagine > Linus saying "I have a dream that distributed version control will be > easy." Same sorta thing, right? > > > On 24 July 2013 13:06, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Benoit, >> >> You should defo watch that video and see what you think. Note that it >> does not matter if we are a company. This insight applies to companies, >> products, loose groups of people working towards one thing (like the Wright >> brothers) and even individuals. (i.e. What is your personal "why" and how >> are the things you are doing working towards that.) >> >> I also want to put you at ease by saying that having a single shared >> "why" doesn't mean that anybody's vision, or personal goals have to be left >> by the wayside. People can still come to the project with their own goals, >> and their own perspective. But the project itself should have a clear sense >> of what we are trying to accomplish. >> >> I think the "why" we come up with can easily be something that inspires >> and is important to the Hoodie peeps, the Kanso peeps, the CouchApp peeps, >> the "big data" peeps, the mobile platform peeps. Think about a why that >> might evolve out of "your data, everywhere". Who (in our existing >> communities) wouldn't love that and want to rally behind that? (But this is >> just one idea.) >> >> Asking "what are the core features" misses the point. Why are these core >> features? Why did we add them in the first place? What are we working >> towards? See, you hit on it in your final sentence: "relax we take care >> about your data and the way you exchange and render them wherever they >> are". This! This is the kind of thing that I think we should hone, and >> figure out, and document. >> >> Once we have that, it can inform our "how". When we're talking about >> features, about product direction (i.e. what we add, what we subtract) we >> can say "well, how is this related to what we're trying to do here?" Do you >> see what I mean? :) >> >> "Painless distributed systems" is also a step in the right direction for >> answering the question "why?" >> >> So far we have: >> >> * Relax >> * Decentralised web >> * Peer-to-peer replication of apps and datasets >> * Your data, everywhere >> * Put the data where you need it >> * We handle your data / you handle display >> * Painless distributed systems >> >> Somewhere in here ^ (and perhaps in a follow up reply) is a single shared >> value system. Something we all hold dear. >> >> >> >> >> On 24 July 2013 12:48, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Anyway, CouchDB is not like apple or dell. This isn't a company. And we >>> don't have to share all the same vision, but only common values, a core. >>> I'm not sure it enter in the what you describe. What kind of vision are >>> you >>> speaking about? >>> >>> Also I would remove any pro-tip from your mail if we want to start from a >>> neutral base. >>> >>> Couchdb is known for the replication but not only. Couchapps and the way >>> people hack around is another (hoodie, kanso, erica/ couchapp all >>> differents visions of what is a couchapp but all are using couchdb the >>> same_.. Message hub is another (nodejistsu, hoodie are using couchdb as a >>> message hub somehow, not only but a lot of their arch is based on >>> changes). >>> And now we we can add some kind of big data handling. Not forgetting >>> people >>> that are using apache couchdb on their mobile, they exists and the >>> patches >>> will be release. >>> >>> All have different visions. But they share some common features. I don't >>> want to forget someone because of a vision of some. I only know that >>> couchdb has some strong features that could be improved. >>> >>> All that to say that rather than thinking to a vision, maybe we could >>> collect all the usages around and see what emerges from it. What are the >>> core features, What couchdb should focus on and itterrate depending on >>> the >>> new usage. I guess it's some kind of philosophy: "relax we take care >>> about >>> your data and the way you exchange and render them wherever they are". >>> >>> - benoit >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > Hi devs, >>> > >>> > I came across this video recently: >>> > >>> > Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action >>> > >>> http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html >>> > >>> > In it he sets out what he calls the Golden Circle: >>> > >>> > Why >>> > >>> > - What's your purpose? >>> > - What's your cause? >>> > - What's your belief? >>> > >>> > How >>> > >>> > - How do we do it? >>> > - How does our product differentiate? >>> > - How are we different? >>> > - How are we better? >>> > >>> > What >>> > >>> > - What do we do? >>> > - What do we make? >>> > >>> > He points out that the difference between companies like Apple and >>> > companies like Dell. >>> > >>> > Dell tells you what they do, and how. "We make great computers. They're >>> > well designed and work well. Wanna buy a computer?" Most companies do >>> it >>> > like this. But they often miss out the "why". >>> > >>> > But then you look at Apple, and they do it the other way around. Apple >>> tell >>> > you what their purpose is. The rest is almost an afterthought. "We >>> believe >>> > in challenging the status quo. We believe in thinking different. We do >>> that >>> > with great design and a focus on the user experience. We just happen to >>> > make computers." He then joking quips: "Ready to buy one yet?" >>> > >>> > (His talk gives several other examples, with his thesis being that >>> telling >>> > your story from the outside in is what separates all the great >>> companies >>> > and leaders. One of his main examples is the Wright brothers.) >>> > >>> > He comments that if you talk about what you believe, you will attract >>> those >>> > that believe what you believe. That when you talk about what you >>> believe, >>> > people will join you for their own reasons, for their own purpose. And >>> that >>> > what you do simply serves as proof of what you believe. Or as he quips: >>> > "Martin Luther King gave his 'I have a dream' speech, not his 'i have a >>> > plan' speech." >>> > >>> > Why am I bringing this to the dev list? >>> > >>> > Because our message stinks. "Apache CouchDB™ is a database that uses >>> JSON >>> > for documents, JavaScript for MapReduce queries, and regular HTTP for >>> an >>> > API" is a terrible way to introduce who we are, what we stand for, and >>> why >>> > we build this thing. (And I'm allowed to say all that, because I'm the >>> one >>> > who wrote it, with lots of help from Jan.) >>> > >>> > So what am I proposing? I'm proposing that we figure out our why. That >>> we >>> > figure out what we stand for, what we believe in. And then we figure >>> out >>> > how we're gonna do that (pro tip: replication is more important than >>> the >>> > data format we use). Not only will this define a consistent internal >>> vision >>> > for the project (what *are* we working towards anyway?) but it will >>> help us >>> > to attract people who believe in what we believe. >>> > >>> > So, if you have any thoughts about this, speak up! >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > >>> > -- >>> > NS >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> NS >> > > > > -- > NS > -- NS
