Noah, I wonder why I took the time to elaborate on that topic to see all my concerns and *objections* properly ignored just because you don't care about what does the others (which had a known and accepted success in their strategy) or because you just disagree without giving much reason. I would have preferred a formal discussion and a more interesting answer that could have eventually convinced me. You are talking how unfriendly some people are finding this mailing-list, I find your answer particularly unfriendly and not very open.
Anyway let's forget that part and let me quickly answer. You may be not remember but I was disagreeing about the creation about the erlang ml, not finding it particularly useful. And its emptiness since gives me reason somehow. I still don't see any reason to this list, and I am probably not registered to it ( I forgot since). For the others I wasn't particularly available at the time they were created those I have no objections to them since their goal make them apart from the current topic. i10n may become really noisy soon (which I wish). And replication have to exist if the goal is to create a neutral spec widely used in other projects (this the way I understood its creation). Telling me about a project I never heard except on this mailing-list doesn't help me either to find a good reason for it. Though I will look at it. I still have some concerns with an advocacy list (marketing is definitely not the right term, this is not a market), since you choosed to ignore it, that may not have any sense. I will just say that I agree to disagree then. - benoit On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > Benoit, > > This is a notice that I am going to assume lazy consensus on the > proposal to create a marketing@ list. If you have a formal objection > to raise, please do so now, and I will move this to a vote. > > We have the following lists: > > erlang@ - Created specifically to create "safe space" for people to > get up to speed on Erlang > > l10n@ - Created specifically to create a "focused space" for people to > do translations > > replication@ - Created specifically to create a "focused space" for > people discussing replication, etc > > You say this: > > "Also due to the low volumes of mails on @dev this shouldn't be a problem." > > But this is not the common perception. In fact, there is a lot of > traffic to our dev@ mailing list. Way too much for most non-devs to > cope with. I even know current devs who find the traffic from CouchDB > hard to deal with. > > On top of that, our dev@ list can be a bit of a hostile and scary > place. I have had direct feedback on this point. So I am worried that > there are people who are not participating because they don't want to > be on dev@. > > So my goal here is to create a "safe/focused" place where people who > are interested in the "softer" side of marketing and project/community > growth to hang out and discuss things without: > > a) Having to feel put off by devs or dev discussion > b) Having to feel like they are wasting people's time/bandwidth/attention > > "Having a marketing list is also quite uncommon in an opensource projects." > > I don't care. We find what works for us, not what works for other > people. Though, as you mention it, the idea for a marketing@ list > comes from Apache CloudStack. They have one, and it is working out > just fine for them. They get lots of non-dev participation, which is > exactly the sort of thing I am hoping for. You don't have to be able > to code to contribute to CouchDB. > > "When a project starts to have more than 2 lists it starts to be > really annoying to track and quite expensive." > > Expensive in what sense? We already have a number of lists. I think > this expansionism is a good thing. If the lists don't work, it's not a > problem. We close the list, and we move the discussion back to dev. > This is a reversible experiment. > > "I'd be in favour of keeping the number of lists small until it > becomes clear that some topic needs to spin off into its own list." > > We didn't do this for erlang@, or l10n@, or replication@. In each > case, we identified that there might be some discussion which is *not > happening yet because the dev@ list is not a good place for it*. > > "While the volume of marketing emails is low, it's not hard for devs > who aren't that interested in marketing to ignore them, just as those > who aren't interested in specific dev topics can ignore those." > > I believe that just like people talking about how to learn Erlang, and > people talking about translation, and people talking about third-party > apps, the reason the volume is so low is because there is/was no place > to talk about it. > > Our dev list is noisy, can be unfriendly, and is mostly focused on > dbcore dev. (Unsurprisingly.) > > That's fine. But there are other areas to contribute. And I outright > reject the idea that you need to know anything about dbcore or Erlang > or even how to programme to be able to contribute to CouchDB. > > I don't want to dwell on this. I appreciate the discussion, but I > don't want to get lost in the weeds. > > Having acknowledged the concerns raised, I will keep a close eye on > the marketing@ list and assume responsibility for it. I can provide > oversight, and am happy to report on progress in three months, six > months, and so on. > > If this isn't good enough, please raise a formal objection to the > proposal. I will then attempt to call a majority consensus vote so > that we can get this over and done with. > > > > On 3 February 2014 10:46, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Andy Wenk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On 3 February 2014 10:14, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Andy Wenk <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 3 February 2014 08:42, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ashley, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Wrt marketing plans: yes, but half way between my head, and my > private > >>>>>> notes. Unfortunately, my private notes also contain things from > >>>>>> private conversations with people. Major mistake on my part. > Apologies > >>>>>> to the community. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I've just sent an email giving a few people notice that I plan to > >>>>>> start moving things over to the wiki. Hopefully over the next week > or > >>>>>> so I can get all of our existing marketing ideas in a communal space > >>>>>> so we can start to discuss it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As for the marketing@ list: great. So what we'll do now is wait > >>>>>> another day or two. If nobody objects, we can make the list. (This > is > >>>>>> how we make most of our decisions on the project. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I am not sure it's a good idea to have a marketing list. Marketing > >>>>> should be linked to dev and vice-versa . It's important that > marketing > >>>>> follows dev discussion and that dev follows and interact with the > marketing. > >>>>> Having 2 mailing-lists will create a disconnection. Which is good > path to > >>>>> the failure in tech. Also due to the low volumes of mails on @dev > this > >>>>> shouldn't be a problem. > >>>>> > >>>>> - benoit > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> hm ... I understand exactly what you mean and I agree, if we would > speak > >>>> of a company with different big departments here. But in our project > I think > >>>> it is totally ok that we have two different lists and the people who > are > >>>> strongly interested in both parts should subscribe both lists. The > advantage > >>>> imho is to not flood the dev@ list with unrelated stuff ... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Why do you think it would be different because we are an opensource > >>> project? If marketing people don't want to follow all devs discussion > then > >>> there is some perspective problem imo. The same for devs that ignore > the > >>> users perspectives. Marketing should be elaborated with all the devs, > not in > >>> a side corner. At least this what we learn in management schools. And > this > >>> is really true for a **neutral** opensource project which has no > business > >>> perspective (and shouldn't have). > >>> > >>> - benoit > >> > >> > >> I did not mean to see it differently because we are an OpenSource > project > >> but because of the size of the project. I don't think that we will have > the > >> situation, that the marketing activities are going into a different > >> direction because of having two lists. I still believe that everything > is > >> very transparent. Having more lists does not lead to in-transparencies > but > >> will lead in more focused discussions. The connection between marketing > and > >> development targets is created by the interest people have - and they > should > >> be interested in both and should therefor subscribe both lists ... if > they > >> don't they are not interested in marketing activities (what is ok for > me). > >> But I agree that if no dev will subscribe the marketing list, we will > have > >> the marketing activities in a side corner ... > >> > >> > >> > > > > this is the " if they don't they are not interested in marketing > activities" > > which is problematic. By marketing in a community project, I often mean > > every actions taken to grow the community. I can't imagine a dev not > > interested by it. Having a marketing list is also quite uncommon in an > > opensource projects. But to be more concrete I often take the zeromq > project > > as a template to build a successful community, When you see the > > mailing-lists attached to the project [1] you only have 2. If you take a > > recent success in communication, the docker project, this is the same > [2]. > > > > Imo this is part of its success. While it's totally fine to multiply the > > annonces channels, I do think that a community and its members should > act > > together when it's about core community discussions. Part of these core > > discussions are: > > > > - dev discussions : features/roadmap/status > > - community discussions > > - users discussions about some features > > > > > > Also lot of peopple are already subscribed to more than XXX list, to > follow > > N projetcs daily (customer purpose, survey...). When a project starts to > > have more than 2 lists it starts to be really annoying to track and quite > > expensive. > > > > - benoit > > > > > > [1] http://zeromq.org/docs:mailing-lists > > [2] http://www.docker.io/community/ > > > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater >
