couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Date Mon, 26 May 2014 21:34:31 GMT

On 26 May 2014, at 23:17 , Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:

> Note that the doc I link to does explicitly say we welcome
> contributions to design. It's listed under the Project section, as
> branding and design. Again, the problem is that there are simply too
> many ways to contribute.
> 
> On 26 May 2014 23:01, Joan Touzet <joant@lrtw.org> wrote:
> 
>> I hadn't heard the acronym previously, and a quick web search doesn't turn up any
other uses of it. Still, the list of "what we value," just like the list of "we don't discriminate
against these things" should be ever-expanding. I am not opposed to spinning this lit out
and instead saying something like:
> 
> Then let's drop it and come up with something very generic about how
> we value any sort of positive contribution.
> 
>>  "We value contributions that include, but are not limited to: community, project,
documentation, code, visual design, internationalisation, ..." and then link to the contributor
guide as a full resource.
> 
> The problem here is that the list is too long.
> 
> Here's an example:
> 
> We value contributions, such as moderating discussions, recruiting new
> contributors, organising events, providing user support (via the
> mailing list or third-party support forums), helping with ticket
> triage, product management, preparing or testing releases, quality
> assurance, marketing, promotion, branding, design, documentation,
> translation, writing cookbooks and tutorials, blogging, helping with
> the wiki, giving talks, doing screencasts, interviewing people,
> running meetings, contributing code, performing code reviews, helping
> with tests, helping with continuous integration, working on CouchDB
> tools and libraries, and packaging for third-party distros.
> 
> This is too much. Heh. And it might look like I'm being pedantic, but
> I actually spent an hour or more reformatting a list like this, trying
> to group it and make it manageable, and in the end I just gave up.
> 
> The problem is, we're basically listing every task and every job that
> might conceivably be involved in shipping a product. Which is a very
> long list and I have surely missed things. Like, uh, community
> management!
> 
> And I don't know how to cut it down without just shortening it to the
> COPDOC list. I.e. "We value contributions to the community, project,
> documentation, and code." And then we just punt this ever-increasing
> list of stuff to a new doc, as I have done.
> 
> (I'm not attached to the COPDOC acronym itself. I just thought it was
> a neat concept.)

Nothing wrong with the meta-list of areas and a link to the specific
things, I’d just say that design is top-level important and worth
mentioning in the bylaws :)



Mime
View raw message