@tzuli...@apache.org <tzuli...@apache.org> > instead of splitting into “sub-lists”, we should simply have dedicated “sub-topic maintainers” assigned. I think this could also work, but some mails may fall between the filters.
@i...@ververica.com <i...@ververica.com> I guess the previous decision about StateFun ML was made in a bit different context: no other sub-lists and no data about the list. Regards, Roman On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 2:59 PM Igal Shilman <i...@ververica.com> wrote: > Hi Roman, > > Regarding StateFun having a separate mailing list, I'm ok with it going > either-way, however when we first contributed > the project there was already a discussion about having a separate mailing > list for StateFun [1] and the feedback was > having StateFun be part of the regular mailing list. > > > [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@flink.apache.org/msg31464.html > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 12:25 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <tzuli...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I feel that the issues Roman has pointed out so far, is less a problem of >> all topics (SQL / PyFlink / StateFun) being on the same list, and more a >> problem that we are missing dedicated groups of “user support shepherds” >> who are specifically responsible for individual topics on a day-to-day >> basis. >> >> In the distant past, we used to assign shepherds for individual components >> in Flink. >> Perhaps something similar to that, but specifically for daily user mailing >> lists support, is already sufficient to solve the mentioned problems. >> So essentially, instead of splitting into “sub-lists”, we should simply >> have dedicated “sub-topic maintainers” assigned. >> >> For example, for myself, I set a filter on my email client to look >> specifically for “Stateful Functions / StateFun” mentions, and tag it >> appropriately. >> This already allows me to concentrate on StateFun questions, without >> losing >> the exposure to other things happening in the wider Flink project. >> As far as I can tell, except for some more tricky questions, the >> turnaround >> time for StateFun user questions has been ok so far. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Cheers, >> Gordon >> >> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 6:56 PM Roman Khachatryan <ro...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > Thanks for your replies! >> > >> > @Konstantin Knauf <kna...@apache.org> >> > > Why do you think the quality and speed of answers would improve with >> > dedicated lists? >> > If there is a question on something that you are not an expert in; then >> you >> > either have to >> > - pull in someone who is more experienced in it (more time on hops, >> esp. if >> > the pulled in person isn't available) >> > - or learn it and answer yourself (more time on learning and still >> higher >> > chance of missing something) >> > >> > @Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> and @Dawid Wysakowicz >> > <dwysakow...@apache.org> >> > > I fear that we are creating potential silos where a team doesn't know >> > > what is going on in the other teams. >> > I think some specialization is unavoidable in a big project like Flink >> or >> > Linux (which also has separate lists). >> > And user support ML doesn't seem to me the right tool to deal with it. >> > >> > @Dawid Wysakowicz <dwysakow...@apache.org> >> > > Personally I don't find it problematic. I often find the subjects >> quite >> > > descriptive, they often include tags or mention which API they refer >> to. >> > Yes, but that only means that the sender would already know the "right" >> > list. >> > >> > @Konstantin Knauf <kna...@apache.org> and @j...@apache.org < >> > j...@apache.org> >> > >> > I agree that there are crosscutting areas; and also a chance of sending >> a >> > message to the wrong topic. >> > But splitting doesn't change anything here: if a SQL question for >> example >> > is asked on StateFun ML then >> > we still have the options above (plus an option to redirect user to the >> > other list). >> > >> > Regards, >> > Roman >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 11:30 AM Dawid Wysakowicz < >> dwysakow...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > As others I'd also rather be -1 on splitting (even splitting out the >> > > statefun). >> > > >> > > Personally I don't find it problematic. I often find the subjects >> quite >> > > descriptive, they often include tags or mention which API they refer >> to. >> > > If they don't I am quite sure having separate sub-lists would not help >> > > in those cases anyway. I agree with the others that splitting the list >> > > would make the cross communication harder and create knowledge silos. >> > > >> > > It would also incur more requirements on users which already often >> find >> > > ML counter intuitive (See e.g. the discussion about adding a Flink >> slack) >> > > >> > > Best, >> > > >> > > Dawid >> > > >> > > On 01/03/2021 11:20, Timo Walther wrote: >> > > > I would vote -0 here. >> > > > >> > > > I fear that we are creating potential silos where a team doesn't >> know >> > > > what is going on in the other teams. >> > > > >> > > > Regards, >> > > > Timo >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On 01.03.21 10:47, Jark Wu wrote: >> > > >> I also have some concerns about splitting python and sql. >> > > >> Because I have seen some SQL questions users reported but is >> related >> > to >> > > >> deployment or state backend. >> > > >> >> > > >> Best, >> > > >> Jark >> > > >> >> > > >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 17:15, Konstantin Knauf < >> > konstan...@ververica.com >> > > > >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >>> Hi Roman, >> > > >>> >> > > >>> I slightly +1 for a list dedicated to Statefun users, but -1 for >> > > >>> splitting >> > > >>> up the rest. I think there are still a lot of crosscutting >> concerns >> > > >>> between >> > > >>> Python, DataStream, Table API and SQL where users of another API >> can >> > > >>> also >> > > >>> help out, too. It also requires users to think about which lists >> to >> > > >>> subscribe/write to, instead of simply subscribing to one list. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Why do you think the quality and speed of answers would improve >> with >> > > >>> dedicated lists? >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Best, >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Konstantin >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 10:09 AM xiao...@ysstech.com >> > > >>> <xiao...@ysstech.com> >> > > >>> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>>> Hi Roman, >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> This is a very good idea. I will look forward to the official >> > > >>>> setting up >> > > >>>> "sub-lists" as soon as possible and sharing development >> experience >> > and >> > > >>>> problems with friends in a certain field. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Regards, >> > > >>>> yue >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> xiao...@ysstech.com >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> From: Roman Khachatryan >> > > >>>> Date: 2021-03-01 16:48 >> > > >>>> To: dev >> > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Splitting User support mailing list >> > > >>>> Hi everyone, >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> I'd like to propose to extract several "sub-lists" from our user >> > > >>>> mailing >> > > >>>> list (u...@flink.apache.org). >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> For example, >> > > >>>> - user-sql@flink.a.o (Python) >> > > >>>> - user-statefun@f.a.o (StateFun) >> > > >>>> - user-py@f.a.o. (SQL/TableAPI) >> > > >>>> And u...@flink.apache.org will remain the main or "default" >> list. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> That would improve the quality and speed of the answers and allow >> > > >>>> developers to concentrate on the relevant topics. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> At the downside, this would lessen the exposure to the various >> Flink >> > > >>> areas >> > > >>>> for lists maintainers. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> What do you think? >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Regards, >> > > >>>> Roman >> > > >>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> -- >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Konstantin Knauf | Head of Product >> > > >>> >> > > >>> +49 160 91394525 >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> -- >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache >> Flink >> > > >>> Conference >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time >> > > >>> >> > > >>> -- >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany >> > > >>> >> > > >>> -- >> > > >>> Ververica GmbH >> > > >>> Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B >> > > >>> Managing Directors: Yip Park Tung Jason, Jinwei (Kevin) Zhang, >> Karl >> > > >>> Anton >> > > >>> Wehner >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
