I forgot to answer to one of your other concern, but I am totally agree with the fact that contributors don't have to be a developer or whatever. Which doesn't mean they should have a dedicated ml. Not developing and following devs are 2 different things.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 >> > >
