Agreed, apologies to Jan :). JB, let's discuss this at the sync this Wed, and after that we can create a new thread if needed.
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 1:38 PM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 >> >
