couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] The Apache CouchDB Project
Date Wed, 22 May 2013 11:48:05 GMT
Didn't sound grumpy or ranty to me. ;)

The category tags were originally formulated here:

This was in response to Benoit's concern that lazy consensus was being
declared in subjects that were using [DISCUSS]. Specifically, he wants to
know up front if there's a 72 hour window for him to provide feedback.
These seems reasonable to me, and so the category tags are there to make
intentions clear.

I've not actually looked at the "[PROPOSAL] Pulling INSTALL.* into the
docs" thread yet, but I can tell, just from the subject, that it is making
a concrete proposal, and that I have 72 hours to reply before action is
taken. Which is actually quite exciting! We've never had that sort of
clarity before.

The list of "teams" seems a little intimidating. But I don't see this is a
"process". I think Jan has designed it to be as lightweight as possible.
The whole idea is that you can basically do whatever you like. But we've
been wanting to form teams for well over a year now, and I think this is a
fairly decent MVP approach to that.

Here's another way of putting it that might seem less intimidating: let's
all start to tag our emails more often. This allows other people to filter
out threads, or prioritise threads. If one tag starts to swamp dev, let's
move it to a new list.

On 22 May 2013 10:32, 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,
> Dirkjan


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message