couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Marketing suggestion
Date Mon, 03 Feb 2014 09:46:23 GMT
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Andy Wenk <andy@nms.de> wrote:

> On 3 February 2014 10:14, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Andy Wenk <andy@nms.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 February 2014 08:42, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ashley,
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrt marketing plans: yes, but half way between my head, and my private
>>>>> notes. Unfortunately, my private notes also contain things from
>>>>> private conversations with people. Major mistake on my part. Apologies
>>>>> to the community.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've just sent an email giving a few people notice that I plan to
>>>>> start moving things over to the wiki. Hopefully over the next week or
>>>>> so I can get all of our existing marketing ideas in a communal space
>>>>> so we can start to discuss it.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the marketing@ list: great. So what we'll do now is wait
>>>>> another day or two. If nobody objects, we can make the list. (This is
>>>>> how we make most of our decisions on the project.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure it's a good idea to have a marketing list. Marketing
>>>> should be linked to dev and vice-versa . It's important that marketing
>>>> follows dev discussion and that dev follows and interact with the
>>>> marketing. Having 2 mailing-lists will create a disconnection. Which is
>>>> good path to the failure in tech. Also due to the low volumes of mails on
>>>> @dev this shouldn't be a problem.
>>>>
>>>> - benoit
>>>>
>>>
>>> hm ... I understand exactly what you mean and I agree, if we would speak
>>> of a company with different big departments here. But in our project I
>>> think it is totally ok that we have two different lists and the people who
>>> are strongly interested in both parts should subscribe both lists. The
>>> advantage imho is to not flood the dev@ list with unrelated stuff ...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why do you think it would be different because we are an opensource
>> project? If marketing people don't want to follow all devs discussion then
>> there is some perspective problem imo. The same for devs that ignore the
>> users perspectives. Marketing should be elaborated with all the devs, not
>> in a side corner. At least this what we learn in management schools. And
>> this is really true for a **neutral**  opensource project which has no
>> business perspective (and shouldn't have).
>>
>> - benoit
>>
>
> I did not mean to see it differently because we are an OpenSource project
> but because of the size of the project. I don't think that we will have the
> situation, that the marketing activities are going into a different
> direction because of having two lists. I still believe that everything is
> very transparent. Having more lists does not lead to in-transparencies but
> will lead in more focused discussions. The connection between marketing and
> development targets is created by the interest people have - and they
> should be interested in both and should therefor subscribe both lists ...
> if they don't they are not interested in marketing activities (what is ok
> for me). But I agree that if no dev will subscribe the marketing list, we
> will have the marketing activities in a side corner ...
>
>
>
>
this is the " if they don't they are not interested in marketing
activities"  which is problematic. By marketing in a community project, I
often mean every actions taken to grow the community. I can't imagine a dev
not interested by it. Having a marketing list is also quite uncommon in an
opensource projects. But to be more concrete I often take the zeromq
project as a template to build a successful community, When you see the
mailing-lists attached to the project [1] you only have 2. If you take a
recent success in communication, the docker project, this is the same [2].

Imo this is part of its success. While it's totally fine to multiply the
annonces channels, I do think that a community and its members  should act
together when it's about core community discussions. Part of these core
discussions are:

- dev discussions : features/roadmap/status
- community discussions
- users discussions about some features


Also lot of peopple are already subscribed to more than XXX list, to follow
N projetcs daily (customer purpose, survey...). When a project starts to
have more than 2 lists it starts to be really annoying to track and quite
expensive.

- benoit


[1] http://zeromq.org/docs:mailing-lists
[2] http://www.docker.io/community/

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