couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] The Apache CouchDB Project
Date Wed, 22 May 2013 13:51:34 GMT


On 22.05.2013, at 15:44, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@ochtman.nl> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>>> So far.
>> 
>> There are some things here I like, and some I don't like that much.
>> 
>> I like the emphasis on do-ocracy, and the encouragement for
>> non-committers to just do stuff (and get elected as a committer soon
>> thereafter). Or, rather more general, I like all the stuff where you
>> describe opportunities and encouragements and welcoming and shit that
>> can be done.
>> 
>> <ranting> (with a little hyperbole, maybe)
>> 
>> Then, the document goes off and just undoes all of that by boxing
>> everything into tags and teams. Those bits make me just want to revert
>> to my grumpy rant from March's Goals for 2013 thread. This project has
>> way too few active people working to require this much process (most
>> of the tags and the teams); it's just process that maybe makes us feel
>> good, but doesn't actually seem accomplish anything.
>> 
>> Yes, having a short list of people who are interested in specific
>> areas of the project would be good. But is "[PROPOSAL] Pulling
>> INSTALL.* into the docs" really a better subject than just "Pulling
>> INSTALL.* into the docs"? Do we need to carefully delineate every
>> mailing list thread into something that has a specific timeout rules?
>> 
>> I'll posit that if we were a do-ocracy, if we do apply EAFP (which I'm
>> all for!), we don't need all of that stuff. We push stuff forward when
>> we have the chance. When we go a little too far in our enthousiasm, we
>> generally have ways of reverting without much effort. And it would
>> still be useful for new contributors to know that, if the docs suck in
>> some specific area, or if they have an event they want to organize,
>> there are a few people they should talk to who generally know what's
>> going on in that area. And we might call those teams. But I don't
>> think we should get mired too much in delineating Boundaries and
>> Processes.
>> 
>> And that concludes yet another Grumpy Rant,s
>> 
>> Dirkjan
> 
> I'm agree with all of that.
> 
> Anyway ather than team maybe we can just consider tags as a way to
> notify other what's going on and not as teams. I think teams are
> prematured right now. We will have a lot of overlaps between people
> anyway. I'm +1 for having a bunch of supported tags. Will see how it
> works in real life anyway since it's all to people to use them or not.
> 
> One practical thing I see to tags is that it can also improve their
> referencing and help us to build some kind of relaxed knowledge base.


That summarises my intent. I'm glad we are on the same page. :)

Jan
-- 


Mime
View raw message