@Matthias: Yes, this is the reason why I like the KIP process and why I said "The problem with these is that a) the comments on the Google Docs are not reflected in Jira and the mailing list. There has been some very active discussion on some of the docs that most people would never notice.".
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 at 11:28 Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: > I also like the proposal. I think its an issue that Google Docs comments > are not reflected within ASF infra. Therefore, I'm +1 on discussing the > proposals on the mailing list. > > I agree that we need to clean up our wiki. > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Just to point out one thing about Kafka KIPs and using the project wiki: > > > > The wiki contains the current state of the proposal, while the > > discussion is covered over the dev-mailing list. IMHO, this makes a lot > > of sense, as people tend to follow the mailing list but not wiki > > changes. Furthermore, the mailing list tracks the whole discussion > > history, while the proposal is kept in a clean state and thus easy to > read. > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > On 07/06/2016 10:09 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > > > Jip, that's why I referenced the Kafka process which is also in their > > wiki. > > > > > > On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 at 21:01 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >> Yes, big +1 > > >> > > >> I had actually talked about the same thing with some people as well. > > >> > > >> I am currently sketching a few FLIPs for things, like improvements to > > the > > >> Yarn/Mesos/Kubernetes integration > > >> > > >> > > >> One thing we should do here is to actually structure the wiki a bit to > > make > > >> it easier to find information and proposals. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hey Aljoscha, > > >>> > > >>> thanks for this proposal. I've somehow missed it last week. I like > the > > >>> idea very much and agree with your assessment about the problems with > > >>> the Google Doc approach. > > >>> > > >>> Regarding the process: I'm also in favour of adopting it from Kafka. > I > > >>> would not expect any problems with this, but we can post a quick note > > >>> to their ML. > > >>> > > >>> @Matthias: The name works for me. ;-) > > >>> > > >>> – Ufuk > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> FLIP ?? Really? :D > > >>>> > > >>>> http://www.maya.tv/en/character/flip > > >>>> > > >>>> -Matthias > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On 06/28/2016 06:26 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > > >>>>> I'm proposing to add a formal process for how we deal with (major) > > >>>>> improvements to Flink and design docs. This has been mentioned > > several > > >>>>> times recently but we never took any decisive action to actually > > >>> implement > > >>>>> such a process so here we go. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Right now, we have Jira issues and we sometimes we have design docs > > >>> that we > > >>>>> keep in Google Docs. Jamie recently added links to those that he > > could > > >>> find > > >>>>> on the mailing list to the Flink wiki: > > >>>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Apache+Flink+Home. > > >>> The > > >>>>> problem with these is that a) the comments on the Google Docs are > not > > >>>>> reflected in Jira and the mailing list. There has been some very > > >> active > > >>>>> discussion on some of the docs that most people would never notice. > > >> The > > >>>>> community therefore might seem less active than it actually is. b) > > the > > >>>>> documents are not very discoverable, if we had a clearly defined > > place > > >>>>> where we put them and also prominently link to this on the Flink > > >>> homepage > > >>>>> this would greatly help people that try to find out about current > > >>>>> developments. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Kafka has a process like this: > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals > > >>> . > > >>>>> They call it KIP, for Kafka Improvement Proposal. We could either > > >> adapt > > >>>>> this for Flink or come up with our own process. Doing the former > > would > > >>> save > > >>>>> us a lot of time and I don't think the Kafka community would mind > us > > >>>>> copying their process. The subject also hints at this, our process > > >>> could be > > >>>>> called FLIP, for Flink Improvement Proposal. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> What do you think? Feedback is highly welcome. :-) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>> Aljoscha > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >
