Hi It sounds reasonable to me.
For background, Apache projects have different approaches about blog: - some are using blog more like announcements for the projects but also dependent projects (https://camel.apache.org/blog/) - some are just listing blog post links related to the project (https://karaf.apache.org/documentation.html#articles) The foundation has a blog related to news (https://news.apache.org/). I'm not a big fan of blog in projects with content (because it's hard to maintain and never up to date), but I think it's valuable for the community to easily find resources about the projects. So, just a blog page with links to different blog posts is good enough (but it needs some attention to be "maintained"). Just my $0.01 Regards JB On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 11:03 PM Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Y'all > > We talked about this a bit in a community sync a while back and I know a > bunch of committers have > been working off some of the consensus we reached then but I'm not sure we > ever actually documented > this. > > 1. Should the Apache Iceberg community still maintain a set of Blogs and > Talks that are curated on the > main site by committers and PMC members? > > The arguments in favor: > > The current state requires individuals to make decisions on about > inclusion/exclusion of content > It is very difficult to maintain and keep up to date > There are lots of blog and talk aggregations for Iceberg content out there > already > > The arguments against: > > Have an easy place for folks to find more Iceberg Content > Have a location to post internal announcements > ----------- > > Personally I think we should just drop the blogs site for now with the option > of bringing back an Iceberg > dev only blog in the future and switch the Talks page to just link out to the > official Youtube channel which mostly > has entries for Iceberg Summit and our community syncs. > > ------- > > 2. Should all vendor/integrations link out to external documentation rather > than having in tree maintained > documentation? > > This I think is more straightforward. We have already had a lot of link-rot > and Integration documentation falling behind > actual integrations. Here I really don't want to break any previous hard > links to Iceberg's docs so I think we should leave > everything currently in tree, in tree. But for all new contributions and on > any updates to a vendor.md or integration.md we > should always link out to third party documentation unless we are documenting > something that is actually in the Iceberg > library (like S3FileIO and friends). > > Thanks as usual everyone, > Russ > > Here is a PR with my suggested changes for the above two points > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14110 >
