Nick, I don't think you are filibustering. You raise a good point that has not come up yet.
Namely: what do we consider to be the success criteria of mailing lists? And perhaps more importantly: what are the failure criteria? Here's my attempt at answering those questions. Success criteria: - The mailing lists are occasionally used, and when questions are posted there, replies are received. - People who might not otherwise have been active start to become active. Failure criteria: - Mails posted to the list go unread/un-responded to. - Something important for the whole community was missed because it was happening away from the dev@ list. It's important to remember how mailing lists form at Apache. The dev@ list is *the* list. Every other mailing list, including user@ is optional, and is spun out at the behest of the community. (I am not including private@ here, as that is mandatory for other reasons.) On 4 February 2014 11:35, Nick North <[email protected]> wrote: > PS I don't want to be seen as filibustering here so, if people consider this > to be a waste of time, I'm +1 on creating the list if the people who want to > do the work want it. (Even though it's not my own inclination.) > > Nick > >> On 4 Feb 2014, at 17:30, Nick North <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'm probably going to regret jumping into this, especially as I'm modifying >> my earlier view a bit, but how about getting some objectivity by basing a >> decision on whether to go ahead on the record of the other spin-off lists >> that have already been created? I have no idea how much traffic they have >> but, if they have a reasonable amount then spin-off lists can be said to >> work in CouchDb and the marketing one should go ahead; if not, then I >> suggest that they are not worth it, marketing should not go ahead, and >> consideration could be given to cancelling those lists. >> >> I don't have a definition of "reasonable", but would say anything more than >> "tiny" is enough to justify the marketing list as we should be biased >> towards people who want to get on and do things. >> >> Nick >> >>>> On 4 Feb 2014, at 16:52, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Benoit, it's not that you're "the bad guy" for disagreeing. The >>>> problem is when you filibuster people until they run out of energy. >>>> This has been a problem for a long time now. >>>> >>>> As we continue to grow CouchDB we need to get out of this mindset that >>>> unanimity is required to proceed on any action. You cannot scale a >>>> decision making process beyond a few people with that model. Our >>>> problems will only *worsen* unless we figure out way to solve this. >>>> >>>> You seem to be implying that my approach (which is not really my >>>> approach, but rather the Apache approach) is silencing or >>>> disempowering people. >>>> >>>> Quite the contrary. >>>> >>>> In fact, I have openly stated that anyone on this mailing list may >>>> raise a formal objection and I will immediately cease my current >>>> action. And I will then move this to a vote so that we can tally >>>> people's opinions. >>>> >>>> Nobody has done that yet. This is the 13th email now. And we're at 2549 >>>> words. >>>> >>>> In fact, what I am doing is empowering. >>>> >>>> Because I'm also stating that anyone else can do this. If you (dear >>>> reader) have a proposal, and you are worried that you're going to be >>>> filibustered off the mailing list, I invite you to share it with the >>>> group. >>>> >>>> And I invite you to solicit clear, unambiguous objections. Do not let >>>> people send email after email with concerns, and nitpicks, and >>>> disquitions on nomenclature. >>>> >>>> Remind people: so far I have not heard an objection. If someone has a >>>> formal objection to make, please make it. >>>> >>>>> I had no response to the reasons I have gave (a "I read you" is not a >>>> response) >>>> >>>> It is a response. I understand your concerns. What else do you want me >>>> to say? There's nothing else to discuss. I still think the mailing >>>> list is a good idea. I want to try it as an experiment, and am happy >>>> to report back to the PMC. >>>> >>>> >>>> Beeing verbose is sometimes more polite than a simple "wtf" . I could be >>> rather short if you prefer, acting accordingly to my culture, but I am not >>> sure it would be constructive. >>> >>> Anyway I did object. I did say why, I still object. The original thread >>> shows I am not the only one to think we don't need another list. It also >>> shows some want it. >>> >>> These are facts. Now you can choose to create or not this maliling-list. >>> >>> - benoit -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
