couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Kowalski <...@kowalski.gd>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list
Date Sat, 12 Sep 2015 19:08:06 GMT
>  While idea is good and clear, I don't believe that we can attract
> enough people to have this ML alive. Suddenly, our active part of
> community is quite small and here question lays in dimension to make
> their life easy and to not loose even them

That's a good point, sometimes I ask myself if our community is so small
because it is so hard to make proposals and because of the type of feedback
they receive.

I sometimes get the feeling many proposals with good intentions are not
getting much constructive feedback at some point from a few persons. There
is almost always someone how says something negative that is not helpful
for anyone, like: "that is impossible" or "that does not make sense to me"
or "we don't attract enough people for that".

It is important to note that there is usually no suggestion included how we
could fix the problem instead.

Taking a look at my proposals these responses don't help me to continue to
try to make the project better. I am suddenly in the situation where I have
to defend why something is not "impossible". These responses also don't
encourage me to stick to the proposal I submitted. They also cause a lot of
friction for me and make me sad, sometimes angry.

When I would have read these feedbacks 1-2 years ago when I was very new to
the project they would have made me go away from the project.

In the future I would be super happy to hear questions or suggestions like
"how can we attract enough people to make a possible design ML a thriving
place for many designers?" instead - if someone thinks that this might be a
problem.

For proposals that I've written in the past months it would help me to work
further on the proposed idea and motivate me to try to improve CouchDB and
I think it would also apply to others.

</offtopic>

I am +1 on the design ML. I am also +1 on every experiment to make it
easier for designers to participate in CouchDB.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Alexander Shorin <kxepal@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Michelle Phung <michellep@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > You didn’t say it like that exactly in irc :P but you did allude to it :)
> >
> > I thought you meant that if I opened a design@ML that people would use
> it sparsely as they used the www@ML sparsely. :)
>
> Then I was not clear (: Sorry.
>
> > We could reuse www@ but its a narrow label for all things design.
> > Although www@ML as a name is not very descriptive as to what is being
> discussed (for new people).
> >
> > I’d like the design@ML to be an umbrella for design discussions. and
> people know right away its about design.
> > It will be like a door for designers to come to couchDB through.
>
> Since our design topics are www-related, it makes hard to decide where
> to start topic about some, let's say, Fauxton feature. On one hand,
> it's www-related, however, without design bits users cannot use it.
> Split discussion over two ML's sounds as overkill.
>
> While idea is good and clear, I don't believe that we can attract
> enough people to have this ML alive. Suddenly, our active part of
> community is quite small and here question lays in dimension to make
> their life easy and to not loose even them.
>
> There is a reason to create a new ML to isolate some specific
> discussions from the others (like erlang talks from frontend). But you
> want to fragmentate fronend topics while existed ML is not much
> active. I'm fine with new ML, but I don't think it's reasonable to
> have it now.
>
> --
> ,,,^..^,,,
>

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