couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [NOTICE] Create marketing@ lis (Was: Re: Marketing suggestion)
Date Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:43:38 GMT
I forgot to answer to one of your other concern, but I am totally agree
with the fact that contributors don't have to be a developer or whatever.
Which doesn't mean they should have a dedicated ml. Not developing and
following devs are 2 different things.


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Noah,
>
> I wonder why I took the time to elaborate on that topic to see all my
> concerns and *objections* properly ignored just because you don't care
> about what does the others (which had a known and accepted success in their
> strategy)  or because you just disagree without giving much reason. I would
> have preferred a formal discussion and a more interesting answer that could
> have eventually convinced me. You are talking how unfriendly some people
> are finding this mailing-list, I find your answer particularly unfriendly
> and not very open.
>
> Anyway let's forget that part and let me quickly answer. You may be not
> remember but I was disagreeing about the creation about the erlang ml, not
> finding it particularly useful. And its emptiness since gives me reason
> somehow. I still don't see any reason to this list, and I am probably not
> registered to it ( I forgot since).
>
> For the others I wasn't particularly available at the time they were
> created those I have no objections to them since their goal make them apart
> from the current topic. i10n may become really noisy soon (which I wish).
> And replication have to exist if the goal is to create a neutral spec
> widely used in other projects (this the way I understood its creation).
>
> Telling me about a project I never heard except on this mailing-list
> doesn't help me either to find a good reason for it. Though I will look at
> it.
>
> I still have some concerns with an advocacy list (marketing is definitely
> not the right term, this is not a market), since you choosed to ignore it,
> that may not have any sense. I will just say that I agree to disagree then.
>
> - benoit
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Benoit,
>>
>> This is a notice that I am going to assume lazy consensus on the
>> proposal to create a marketing@ list. If you have a formal objection
>> to raise, please do so now, and I will move this to a vote.
>>
>> We have the following lists:
>>
>> erlang@ - Created specifically to create "safe space" for people to
>> get up to speed on Erlang
>>
>> l10n@ - Created specifically to create a "focused space" for people to
>> do translations
>>
>> replication@ - Created specifically to create a "focused space" for
>> people discussing replication, etc
>>
>> You say this:
>>
>> "Also due to the low volumes of mails on @dev this shouldn't be a
>> problem."
>>
>> But this is not the common perception. In fact, there is a lot of
>> traffic to our dev@ mailing list. Way too much for most non-devs to
>> cope with. I even know current devs who find the traffic from CouchDB
>> hard to deal with.
>>
>> On top of that, our dev@ list can be a bit of a hostile and scary
>> place. I have had direct feedback on this point. So I am worried that
>> there are people who are not participating because they don't want to
>> be on dev@.
>>
>> So my goal here is to create a "safe/focused" place where people who
>> are interested in the "softer" side of marketing and project/community
>> growth to hang out and discuss things without:
>>
>> a) Having to feel put off by devs or dev discussion
>> b) Having to feel like they are wasting people's time/bandwidth/attention
>>
>> "Having a marketing list is also quite uncommon in an opensource
>> projects."
>>
>> I don't care. We find what works for us, not what works for other
>> people. Though, as you mention it, the idea for a marketing@ list
>> comes from Apache CloudStack. They have one, and it is working out
>> just fine for them. They get lots of non-dev participation, which is
>> exactly the sort of thing I am hoping for. You don't have to be able
>> to code to contribute to CouchDB.
>>
>> "When a project starts to have more than 2 lists it starts to be
>> really annoying to track and quite expensive."
>>
>> Expensive in what sense? We already have a number of lists. I think
>> this expansionism is a good thing. If the lists don't work, it's not a
>> problem. We close the list, and we move the discussion back to dev.
>> This is a reversible experiment.
>>
>> "I'd be in favour of keeping the number of lists small until it
>> becomes clear that some topic needs to spin off into its own list."
>>
>> We didn't do this for erlang@, or l10n@, or replication@. In each
>> case, we identified that there might be some discussion which is *not
>> happening yet because the dev@ list is not a good place for it*.
>>
>> "While the volume of marketing emails is low, it's not hard for devs
>> who aren't that interested in marketing to ignore them, just as those
>> who aren't interested in specific dev topics can ignore those."
>>
>> I believe that just like people talking about how to learn Erlang, and
>> people talking about translation, and people talking about third-party
>> apps, the reason the volume is so low is because there is/was no place
>> to talk about it.
>>
>> Our dev list is noisy, can be unfriendly, and is mostly focused on
>> dbcore dev. (Unsurprisingly.)
>>
>> That's fine. But there are other areas to contribute. And I outright
>> reject the idea that you need to know anything about dbcore or Erlang
>> or even how to programme to be able to contribute to CouchDB.
>>
>> I don't want to dwell on this. I appreciate the discussion, but I
>> don't want to get lost in the weeds.
>>
>> Having acknowledged the concerns raised, I will keep a close eye on
>> the marketing@ list and assume responsibility for it. I can provide
>> oversight, and am happy to report on progress in three months, six
>> months, and so on.
>>
>> If this isn't good enough, please raise a formal objection to the
>> proposal. I will then attempt to call a majority consensus vote so
>> that we can get this over and done with.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3 February 2014 10:46, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>
>
>

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