couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] The Apache CouchDB Project
Date Thu, 30 May 2013 11:52:42 GMT
I've been organising my task list, and I've merged PKG and RELEASE into one
team called PM. PM here being short for Product Management. Think it makes
sense to group these things together. Hoping to get Brian Green involved in
this too.


On 22 May 2013 14:51, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:

>
>
> 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
> --
>
>


-- 
NS

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