couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] The Apache CouchDB Project
Date Wed, 22 May 2013 13:44:21 GMT
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <> wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Jan Lehnardt <> 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.

- benoit

View raw message