Daniel is right, we deviated :) OK Brian, let's do that.
Apologies. Regards JB On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 8:40 PM Brian Olsen <bitsondata...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
