JB and Brian, I think we should probably move this discussion to a discuss thread specifically for the topics you want to address.
We've had a few instances now where the original intent of the thread is redirected to talk about other subjects. I don't feel this is a good approach because, while it is on the apache mailing list, the topic of the thread doesn't reflect the content, so you don't get the right audience/level of engagement or buy-in. I'm not disagreeing with trying to improve how we communicate and track improvements/proposals/etc, but I think we should try to keep the thread on topic. Thanks, -Dan On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 9:26 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Oh, I don't say we have to provide a user mailing list. Personally, I > like mailing list mainly because we have https://lists.apache.org/ > where we can browse and search on the mailing lists. > A lot of Apache projects are using Slack or Zulip, but in parallel of > mailing lists. As we say at Apache: "if it doesn't happen on the > mailing list, it never happens". > That said I would distinguish: > - for dev, obviously we can use Slack for discussion, community > meetings, etc, but we have to send main topics/discussions on the dev > mailing list. > - for user, I think Slack is good, but I like the user mailing list, > to track/search/async communication as well. > > That's another discussion anyway, let's focus on the design proposals > space: my understanding is that we want to have a space listing all > proposals, for review, tagged as "done" or "in progress". Right ? > I don't think a forum/stack overflow like would help here (it helps > for users, not for dev/technical/design proposals). > > At Apache Beam, we have a similar page as at Iceberg: > https://beam.apache.org/roadmap/ where you can click on roadmap items > for details (https://beam.apache.org/roadmap/portability/). > So, initially, I proposed to update > https://iceberg.apache.org/roadmap/ with proposals (status > "discussion"). As most of the proposals (all ?) come as Google Link, > we can change a bit the look'n feel of this page including the list of > proposals. > > That could be a first move, we can update later. > > Regards > JB > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 5:54 PM Brian Olsen <bitsondata...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Yeah, unfortunately there's no way to limit the functionality to only > facilitate this. In fact, the product that gets closest to it is GitHub > Issues. > > > > I believe putting the onus on developers deeply involved in the project > makes sense. Expecting users, especially newer users of a newer generation > will use an email list is unlikely, especially if they're in a discovery > mode and figuring out how to solve an issue. A lot of garnering adoption > from users is lowering every barrier to entry as well as lowering time to > that first hello world dopamine hit. > > > > I'm middle millennial and even I find using email for discussion outside > of my mental model/preference but I also see the benefits. > > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:45 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> > >> The idea is really to "square" GH Discussion only to roadmap/design > proposals. > >> > >> For "user support", more than Slack, I would love to see > >> u...@iceberg.apache.org. > >> > >> So I would distinguish: > >> - the design/spec proposals where we could use GH Discussions. If > >> people use GH Discussion for support questions, then we can move to GH > >> Issue or direct to the mailing list/slack. > >> - the user "support" should be on user mailing list and/or Slack > >> > >> You have a valid point: GH Discussions could be hard to manage because > >> most users will use it as a "support forum". > >> > >> My point is really: > >> - we need a central space for design/spec proposals > >> - it has to be on Iceberg community and visible for all > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 5:30 PM Brian Olsen <bitsondata...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > GitHub Discussions could be a solution that we should consider. We > used it on the Trino side but still have mixed results with it. On one > hand, there's a lot of overlap between creating Issues and Discussions. In > fact, GitHub allows you to migrate Issues that only involve discussing a > topic, or something that can't immediately be tied to any upcoming work to > be a discussion. This keeps the Issue backlog focused on actionable > requests. > >> > > >> > That said, Discussions can become difficult to maintain if no person > or body of people drives it. Of course, the community will drive it to some > degree, especially when it's new and shiny, but GitHub Discussions, much > like Slack, becomes a support channel that encourages the messy human > interactions that help us arrive at a solution. So the question is do we > want to open Discussions knowing that it may become a second support > channel compared to Slack? Would we want to use Discussions in place of > Slack so that there's still a single triage channel? > >> > > >> > I personally lean towards keeping a single real-time "support-like" > channel in the community, otherwise, you will fragment the attention of the > community. Most of what we would need to support the centralization of > proposals can be accomplished with Issues. Slack still seems to be the > dominant interactive system of choice and where we are now so I wouldn't > suggest moving that. I do think this is worth a discussion at the next sync > so I'll add it. > >> > > >> > In full transparency, Tabular is building an Iceberg-focused > Discourse forum (not to be confused with Discord) instance to solve the > problem of centralizing discussions in the community to wiki-style answers > we can link to and having dedicated content curators to those solutions. > Think of it as an Iceberg-specific Stack Overflow with lightened rules to > allow more open discussion. Adding GitHub discussions wouldn't collide with > our goals as it would become another signal that we could use to inform the > answers on our forum. It still comes back to the value given the cost for > the community to manage it. > >> > > >> > I know I have a lot of thoughts around this and its because I've been > down this road before, but perhaps there's a nuance I'm not seeing yet. > >> > > >> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 7:15 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Just to be clear: we can GH Discussions subjects template via > >> >> .asf.yaml but we have to open a ticket to INFRA to enable it. > >> >> > >> >> Regards > >> >> JB > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 1:56 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > Hi Brian > >> >> > > >> >> > I like the idea of GitHub. Why not enabling (in .asf.yml) GitHub > >> >> > discussions ? A GitHub Discussion could be a good place to share > the > >> >> > doc and exchange both in the doc and in the discussion comments. > >> >> > > >> >> > Regards > >> >> > JB > >> >> > > >> >> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 1:13 PM Brian Olsen < > bitsondata...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Hey JB, > >> >> > > > >> >> > > I totally agree we need a place to centralize this but I'm nit a > huge fan of all the lists we currently have going on the site. SSGs are > just not an accessible method of storing lists. ( roadmap, blogs, videos, > etc..). > >> >> > > > >> >> > > The roadmap is barely touched for this reason. I want to propose > we move roadmap to GitHub projects. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Likewise, I feel like somewhere on GitHub might be a better > location for this type of thing. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Maybe posting these in GitHub issues and adding a proposal label? > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:28 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Hi Jan > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Thanks for the reminder. I will take a look. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> As proposed by Renjie a few days ago, it would be great to > >> >> > >> gather/store all document proposals in a central place. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> If there are no objections, I will prepare a PR for the website > about > >> >> > >> that (with a space listing/linking all proposals). > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Regards > >> >> > >> JB > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:22 AM Jan Kaul > <jank...@mailbox.org.invalid> wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Hi all, > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > I've created an issue to propose a design for a Materialized > View Spec a while ago. After further discussion we reached a first draft > for the spec. It would be great if you could have another look at the > design and share your feedback. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Here is the google doc: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UnhldHhe3Grz8JBngwXPA6ZZord1xMedY5ukEhZYF-A/edit?usp=sharing > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Thanks in advance, > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Jan >
