Rethink our product presentation as a multi-backend tool (closed)


Let me try to show that this is not true:

  • I seeked consensus on 25 March 2014, when I started this very thread. Please read the top post:
  • I got a meta-comment from @raucao, echoed by @almereyda, about grammar and capitalization.
  • I got one piece of feedback:
  • which I took into account:
  • On 28 March I asked for input a second time:
  • There was no reaction to this from anybody. @raucao asked: [quote=“raucao, post:6, topic:173”]
    If you’re talking about the new website
  • So I assumed maybe the lack of input was due to people not having understood my questions, so I gave some examples to try to tinder the discussion:
  • To make sure everybody understood that this discussion is really really about the real website, I added:
  • And in case that still wasn’t clear, I added:
  • I tried to organize a day where we could all work on this while meeting in person:
  • We discussed it in the team meeting, and I posted here again (this was end of April):
  • This meeting happened, but at the start @raucao said we could not all work together on it right away, because he had some pending changes which he wanted to work on alone, so in the end, iirc @galfert and I worked on rs.js while @raucao worked on the website.
  • At the end of this meeting, @raucao said he hadn’t managed to finish the part which he wanted to do alone, and this stayed true for the 5 months that followed. For this reason, no new doc sprint day was organized, and those core team members who had time to contribute just focused on bug sprint days instead.
  • I asked @raucao several times how we could move the process further, but he responded each time with “it’s on the top of my list, but giving pressure isn’t helping”. During JSFest week I tried to work on the website again, reminding @raucao that we’re still in a blocker situation, and have been since at least and this is hurting the project. Again, we were not able to talk about the situation.
  • A couple of weeks ago I staged the proposed changes on seeking technical review
  • I also sought technical review in a PR on the github repo (the rerelaunch branch).
  • I got feedback about some details from @mrshu and @shybyte, and incorporated this.
  • Up to here, I think the process is “OK”. There is maybe a bit of lack of interest from other core team members, and it’s going slower than I would like, but everybody should be free to contribute as much or as little as they want, and that’s all still a functional process within our project.
  • I got asked by @raucao to remove his layout contributions, because he did not want his work to be used in its current form. We don’t have a contributor agreement, and I think that’s good. I think everbody should be able to retract their contributions until they are live / have been merged into a release. Once it’s live, we can’t of course unmerge people’s contributions, but this was still during the review phase. So I removed the layout changes and only kept the text changes.
  • I took care with the way of not mentioning the GoogleDrive and Dropbox backends at the same level as remoteStorage backend, but in an after sentence (‘or even with…’). In the changelog and the release announcement of rs.js 0.10.0 they are also clearly labelled as experimental.
  • Since no further input or feedback came, I put the changes live.
  • Then something happened which is to me unacceptable: @raucao reverted my work without discussing with the rest of the team.
  • I feel that at the next team meeting, we need to agree on a collaboration/contribution process to make sure something like that never happens again within our project.

Core team meeting 09.10.14

So I think our next step should be try to get to a productive process for updating the website, maybe a bit like the review & release process we put in to place for rs.js.

Obviously for small corrections and updates this is not necessary, but for a change like this, I feel like we’re just too unorganized currently. Let’s discuss it at the team meeting! :slight_smile:


This is slightly ridiculous. I will not participate in kindergarten style blame-seeking and I will not debunk this history, because it is missing most of what I said and explained on the way. Apparently you have enough time to spare to write up a one-sided 5-page forums post, but I don’t.

If this is what you want to discuss during the phone call, count me out.


Sure, np. It doesn’t matter now, anyway. It happened, we all learned from it, let’s not look back.

What I want to establish is a process for making substantial changes to the website from now on.


Fair enough.


This discussion is now closed. As discussed, we decided to keep the presentation of what “remoteStorage” is on as mainly about the actual remoteStorage protocol and how to use it.

To fill the gap a little bit, as of version 0.7, meute can be used as a multi-backend tool and I’ll market it as such from now on.

Rs.js will (at least for now) continue to be marketed the way it is marketed now, as a tool that’s focused mainly on remoteStorage, but that has additional experimental support for alternative backends.

Website relaunch concept/content brainstorming/collecting