Thanks, Robert. Good sincere questions. > "how can we attract enough people to make a possible design ML a thriving place for many designers?"
0. ML *must* have markup. Can‘t imagine any article on design without markup. 1. Thrieving place means good content. I thought a minute and couldn‘t remember, when I read _any_ special content about design+CouchDb last time. Although there are several topics seen, I even have one article half written ) 2. Good modern thrieving place allows easy join and ability to comment and interact. I fought 2 times trying to comment on articles issued before I joined ML. Unsuccesfully. All these procedures with emails are completely out of practice, they are unacceptable for designer community. It‘s ok for devs – but not for designers. So welcome design@ ML, but may be some underlying platform changes first? I don‘t know, are they possible or not although. ermouth 2015-09-12 22:08 GMT+03:00 Robert Kowalski <r...@kowalski.gd>: > > While idea is good and clear, I don't believe that we can attract > > enough people to have this ML alive. Suddenly, our active part of > > community is quite small and here question lays in dimension to make > > their life easy and to not loose even them > > That's a good point, sometimes I ask myself if our community is so small > because it is so hard to make proposals and because of the type of feedback > they receive. > > I sometimes get the feeling many proposals with good intentions are not > getting much constructive feedback at some point from a few persons. There > is almost always someone how says something negative that is not helpful > for anyone, like: "that is impossible" or "that does not make sense to me" > or "we don't attract enough people for that". > > It is important to note that there is usually no suggestion included how we > could fix the problem instead. > > Taking a look at my proposals these responses don't help me to continue to > try to make the project better. I am suddenly in the situation where I have > to defend why something is not "impossible". These responses also don't > encourage me to stick to the proposal I submitted. They also cause a lot of > friction for me and make me sad, sometimes angry. > > When I would have read these feedbacks 1-2 years ago when I was very new to > the project they would have made me go away from the project. > > In the future I would be super happy to hear questions or suggestions like > "how can we attract enough people to make a possible design ML a thriving > place for many designers?" instead - if someone thinks that this might be a > problem. > > For proposals that I've written in the past months it would help me to work > further on the proposed idea and motivate me to try to improve CouchDB and > I think it would also apply to others. > > </offtopic> > > I am +1 on the design ML. I am also +1 on every experiment to make it > easier for designers to participate in CouchDB. > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Alexander Shorin <kxe...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Michelle Phung <michel...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > You didn’t say it like that exactly in irc :P but you did allude to it > :) > > > > > > I thought you meant that if I opened a design@ML that people would use > > it sparsely as they used the www@ML sparsely. :) > > > > Then I was not clear (: Sorry. > > > > > We could reuse www@ but its a narrow label for all things design. > > > Although www@ML as a name is not very descriptive as to what is being > > discussed (for new people). > > > > > > I’d like the design@ML to be an umbrella for design discussions. and > > people know right away its about design. > > > It will be like a door for designers to come to couchDB through. > > > > Since our design topics are www-related, it makes hard to decide where > > to start topic about some, let's say, Fauxton feature. On one hand, > > it's www-related, however, without design bits users cannot use it. > > Split discussion over two ML's sounds as overkill. > > > > While idea is good and clear, I don't believe that we can attract > > enough people to have this ML alive. Suddenly, our active part of > > community is quite small and here question lays in dimension to make > > their life easy and to not loose even them. > > > > There is a reason to create a new ML to isolate some specific > > discussions from the others (like erlang talks from frontend). But you > > want to fragmentate fronend topics while existed ML is not much > > active. I'm fine with new ML, but I don't think it's reasonable to > > have it now. > > > > -- > > ,,,^..^,,, > > >
