Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of north.n@gmail.com designates
 209.85.192.180 as permitted sender)
Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Create marketing@ lis (Was: Re: Marketing suggestion)
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>
From: Nick North <north.n@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJNb-9rHpuCP0ebSuWDJ-7qMj89ZBma8UG29PYZWHxS0x6s+2w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <F0CD8996-3579-47D5-9AD7-2D44FE2C32B3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 17:30:26 +0700
To: "dev@couchdb.apache.org" <dev@couchdb.apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)

I'm probably going to regret jumping into this, especially as I'm modifying m=
y earlier view a bit, but how about getting some objectivity by basing a dec=
ision on whether to go ahead on the record of the other spin-off lists that h=
ave already been created? I have no idea how much traffic they have but, if t=
hey have a reasonable amount then spin-off lists can be said to work in Couc=
hDb and the marketing one should go ahead; if not, then I suggest that they a=
re not worth it, marketing should not go ahead, and consideration could be g=
iven to cancelling those lists.

I don't have a definition of "reasonable", but would say anything more than "=
tiny" is enough to justify the marketing list as we should be biased towards=
 people who want to get on and do things.=20

Nick

> On 4 Feb 2014, at 16:52, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> You seem to be implying that my approach (which is not really my
>> approach, but rather the Apache approach) is silencing or
>> disempowering people.
>>=20
>> Quite the contrary.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Nobody has done that yet. This is the 13th email now. And we're at 2549
>> words.
>>=20
>> In fact, what I am doing is empowering.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Remind people: so far I have not heard an objection. If someone has a
>> formal objection to make, please make it.
>>=20
>>> I had no response to the reasons I have gave (a "I read you" is not a
>> response)
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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 also
> shows some want it.
>=20
> These are facts. Now you can choose to create or not this maliling-list.
>=20
> - benoit