couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <>
Subject Re: [NOTICE] Create marketing@ lis (Was: Re: Marketing suggestion)
Date Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:41:13 GMT

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

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 <> 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 <> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Andy Wenk <> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 3 February 2014 10:14, Benoit Chesneau <> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Andy Wenk <> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3 February 2014 08:42, Benoit Chesneau <>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Noah Slater <>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ashley,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Wrt marketing plans: yes, but half way between my head, and
> 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
> >>>>>> start moving things over to the wiki. Hopefully over the next
> or
> >>>>>> so I can get all of our existing marketing ideas in a communal
> >>>>>> 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.
> 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]
> > [2]
> --
> Noah Slater

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