Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7D8BC84B-A490-408D-8CAE-46C174DB0ADE@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAPaJBx6DjzHf1GR=ihNEM6qfOib+YTJ_OmGv3c2QzqDT9xHbzw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJNb-9rMZULdEdmFQC38m6by1StM31giDvnfGBJec_E7AyFz2A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPaJBx6nbVSSD1FGG2PBRqRB9jW31UwDWW171DjKMgCMLBriOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADA9kr_gwWiAOvZDb0LL-FvmtbsjMMCBVm0We7C3a59ywVfDiw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJNb-9qt1Q2h0zNNNy5Ejpj4T6m7uehYiSkRzHtU_1FaXKGpOQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPaJBx7W0iX14BYHxZx-QVyJNHSnZeq5HTrw17hyJ6KiXBZ49A@mail.gmail.com>
	<A1ED4710-8A18-49D1-9960-1998441FF5C6@apache.org>
	<CAJNb-9o1F_7r5d6MF5XHFyWBtF9140mbywc71qNLwqzyghj2uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPaJBx5nxr6Dxv8qyM=DG4m7Y5iEsZWj=5K00-0N2FxMgh8Yiw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJNb-9rHpuCP0ebSuWDJ-7qMj89ZBma8UG29PYZWHxS0x6s+2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<F0CD8996-3579-47D5-9AD7-2D44FE2C32B3@gmail.com>
	<7D8BC84B-A490-408D-8CAE-46C174DB0ADE@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:45:23 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAPaJBx7dR0b_QOeNy7WjUYZbq7Ywpan4xT_+nyVHuZ6itKid1g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Create marketing@ lis (Was: Re: Marketing suggestion)
From: Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org>
To: "dev@couchdb.apache.org" <dev@couchdb.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Nick, I don't think you are filibustering. You raise a good point that
has not come up yet.

Namely: what do we consider to be the success criteria of mailing
lists? And perhaps more importantly: what are the failure criteria?

Here's my attempt at answering those questions.

Success criteria:

- The mailing lists are occasionally used, and when questions are
posted there, replies are received.
- People who might not otherwise have been active start to become active.

Failure criteria:

- Mails posted to the list go unread/un-responded to.
- Something important for the whole community was missed because it
was happening away from the dev@ list.

It's important to remember how mailing lists form at Apache. The dev@
list is *the* list. Every other mailing list, including user@ is
optional, and is spun out at the behest of the community.

(I am not including private@ here, as that is mandatory for other reasons.)


On 4 February 2014 11:35, Nick North <north.n@gmail.com> wrote:
> PS I don't want to be seen as filibustering here so, if people consider t=
his to be a waste of time, I'm +1 on creating the list if the people who wa=
nt to do the work want it. (Even though it's not my own inclination.)
>
> Nick
>
>> On 4 Feb 2014, at 17:30, Nick North <north.n@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm probably going to regret jumping into this, especially as I'm modify=
ing my earlier view a bit, but how about getting some objectivity by basing=
 a decision on whether to go ahead on the record of the other spin-off list=
s that have already been created? I have no idea how much traffic they have=
 but, if they have a reasonable amount then spin-off lists can be said to w=
ork in CouchDb and the marketing one should go ahead; if not, then I sugges=
t that they are not worth it, marketing should not go ahead, and considerat=
ion could be given to cancelling those lists.
>>
>> I don't have a definition of "reasonable", but would say anything more t=
han "tiny" is enough to justify the marketing list as we should be biased t=
owards people who want to get on and do things.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>>> On 4 Feb 2014, at 16:52, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrot=
e:
>>>>
>>>> Benoit, it's not that you're "the bad guy" for disagreeing. The
>>>> problem is when you filibuster people until they run out of energy.
>>>> This has been a problem for a long time now.
>>>>
>>>> As we continue to grow CouchDB we need to get out of this mindset that
>>>> unanimity is required to proceed on any action. You cannot scale a
>>>> decision making process beyond a few people with that model. Our
>>>> problems will only *worsen* unless we figure out way to solve this.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be implying that my approach (which is not really my
>>>> approach, but rather the Apache approach) is silencing or
>>>> disempowering people.
>>>>
>>>> Quite the contrary.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, I have openly stated that anyone on this mailing list may
>>>> raise a formal objection and I will immediately cease my current
>>>> action. And I will then move this to a vote so that we can tally
>>>> people's opinions.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody has done that yet. This is the 13th email now. And we're at 254=
9
>>>> words.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, what I am doing is empowering.
>>>>
>>>> Because I'm also stating that anyone else can do this. If you (dear
>>>> reader) have a proposal, and you are worried that you're going to be
>>>> filibustered off the mailing list, I invite you to share it with the
>>>> group.
>>>>
>>>> And I invite you to solicit clear, unambiguous objections. Do not let
>>>> people send email after email with concerns, and nitpicks, and
>>>> disquitions on nomenclature.
>>>>
>>>> Remind people: so far I have not heard an objection. If someone has a
>>>> formal objection to make, please make it.
>>>>
>>>>> I had no response to the reasons I have gave (a "I read you" is not a
>>>> response)
>>>>
>>>> It is a response. I understand your concerns. What else do you want me
>>>> to say? There's nothing else to discuss. I still think the mailing
>>>> list is a good idea. I want to try it as an experiment, and am happy
>>>> to report back to the PMC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Beeing verbose is sometimes more polite than a simple "wtf" . I could =
be
>>> rather short if you prefer, acting accordingly to my culture, but I am =
not
>>> sure it would be constructive.
>>>
>>> Anyway I did object. I did say why, I still object. The original thread
>>> shows I am not the only one to think we don't need another list. It als=
o
>>> shows some want it.
>>>
>>> These are facts. Now you can choose to create or not this maliling-list=
.
>>>
>>> - benoit


--=20
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater