Hi Dan, I think there are a few questions that we should solve to decide the path forward:
** Does the current spec contain implicit assumptions?* I think the answer is yes. I think this is also what Ryan indicated here [1]. ** Do these implicit assumptions make it difficult to adopt the spec or evolve it in the correct way?* I think the answer is yes as well. MV design discussions became quite complicated because most contributors had a different understanding of the spec compared to what it encodes as implicit assumptions (see this thread for an example [2] -- there are a few more). This unaligned understanding could possibly lead to inaccurate designs and potentially result in unneeded further constraints or unneeded engineering complexity. ** What are the implicit assumptions (in an ambiguous way)?* I do not think the answer is clear to everyone, even at this point. There have been a few variations of those assumptions in this thread alone. I think we should converge on a clear set of assumptions for everyone's consumption. ** Should we add the assumptions explicitly to the spec?* I think we definitely should. Adoption or extension of the spec will be quite difficult if the assumptions are not clearly stated and are interpreted differently by different contributors. Would be great to hear the community's feedback on whether they agree with the answers to the above questions. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/s1hjnc163ny76smv2l0t2sxxn93s4595 [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/0wzowd15328rnwvotzcoo4jrdyrzlx91 Thanks, Walaa.
