incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] The Apache CouchDB Project
Date Sun, 02 Jun 2013 18:51:19 GMT

On May 30, 2013, at 13:52 , Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:

> I've been organising my task list, and I've merged PKG and RELEASE into one
> team called PM. PM here being short for Product Management.

not to bikeshed this too much, but I understand PM to be working on defining
what the project is. What you describe is usually called Release Engineering
or RELENG.

Jan
--


> Think it makes
> sense to group these things together. Hoping to get Brian Green involved in
> this too.
> 
> 
> On 22 May 2013 14:51, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 22.05.2013, at 15:44, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@ochtman.nl>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> So far.
>>>> 
>>>> There are some things here I like, and some I don't like that much.
>>>> 
>>>> I like the emphasis on do-ocracy, and the encouragement for
>>>> non-committers to just do stuff (and get elected as a committer soon
>>>> thereafter). Or, rather more general, I like all the stuff where you
>>>> describe opportunities and encouragements and welcoming and shit that
>>>> can be done.
>>>> 
>>>> <ranting> (with a little hyperbole, maybe)
>>>> 
>>>> Then, the document goes off and just undoes all of that by boxing
>>>> everything into tags and teams. Those bits make me just want to revert
>>>> to my grumpy rant from March's Goals for 2013 thread. This project has
>>>> way too few active people working to require this much process (most
>>>> of the tags and the teams); it's just process that maybe makes us feel
>>>> good, but doesn't actually seem accomplish anything.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, having a short list of people who are interested in specific
>>>> areas of the project would be good. But is "[PROPOSAL] Pulling
>>>> INSTALL.* into the docs" really a better subject than just "Pulling
>>>> INSTALL.* into the docs"? Do we need to carefully delineate every
>>>> mailing list thread into something that has a specific timeout rules?
>>>> 
>>>> I'll posit that if we were a do-ocracy, if we do apply EAFP (which I'm
>>>> all for!), we don't need all of that stuff. We push stuff forward when
>>>> we have the chance. When we go a little too far in our enthousiasm, we
>>>> generally have ways of reverting without much effort. And it would
>>>> still be useful for new contributors to know that, if the docs suck in
>>>> some specific area, or if they have an event they want to organize,
>>>> there are a few people they should talk to who generally know what's
>>>> going on in that area. And we might call those teams. But I don't
>>>> think we should get mired too much in delineating Boundaries and
>>>> Processes.
>>>> 
>>>> And that concludes yet another Grumpy Rant,s
>>>> 
>>>> Dirkjan
>>> 
>>> I'm agree with all of that.
>>> 
>>> Anyway ather than team maybe we can just consider tags as a way to
>>> notify other what's going on and not as teams. I think teams are
>>> prematured right now. We will have a lot of overlaps between people
>>> anyway. I'm +1 for having a bunch of supported tags. Will see how it
>>> works in real life anyway since it's all to people to use them or not.
>>> 
>>> One practical thing I see to tags is that it can also improve their
>>> referencing and help us to build some kind of relaxed knowledge base.
>> 
>> 
>> That summarises my intent. I'm glad we are on the same page. :)
>> 
>> Jan
>> --
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> NS


Mime
View raw message