[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DISCUSS] Beam public roadmap

I think we can easily steer clear of those concerns. It should not look like a company's roadmap. This is just a term that users search for and ask for. It might be an incremental improvement on https://beam.apache.org/contribute/#works-in-progress to present it more for users, to just give them a picture of the trajectory. For example, Beam Python on Flink would probably be of considerable interest but it is buried at https://beam.apache.org/contribute/portability/#status.


On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 6:49 PM Thomas Weise <thw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As I understand it the term "roadmap" is not favored. It may convey the impression of an outside entity that controls what is being worked on and when. At least in theory contributions are volunteer work and individuals decide what they take up. There are projects that have a "list of initiatives" or "improvement proposals" that are either in idea phase or ongoing. Those provide an idea what is on the radar and perhaps that is a sufficient for those looking for the overall direction? 

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:08 PM Kenneth Knowles <kenn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Did some searching about to see what other projects have done. Most OSS projects with open governance don't actually have such a thing AFAICT. Here are some from various [types of] projects. Please contribute links for any project you can think of that might be interesting examples.

My personal favorite for readability and content is Bazel. It does not do timelines, but says what they are most focused on. It has fewer, larger, items than our "Ongoing Projects" section. Then some breakouts into roadmaps for sub-bits.

Apache Flink (roadmap doc is stale, FLIPs nice and readable though)

Apache Spark (no roadmap doc I could find, SPIPs not in real readable format):

Apache Apex

Apache Calcite Avatica

Apache Kafka







On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:34 AM Tim Robertson <timrobertson100@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks Kenn, 

I think this is a very good idea.

My preference would be part of the website and not on a wiki. Those who need to contribute can do so easily and I find wikis often get messy/stale/overwhelming. The website will also mean that we can use dev@ and Jira to track, discuss and help agree upon the roadmap content in a more controlled manner than a wiki which can change without notification. 

I find it difficult to provide input on style / format without mentioning what might be on it I'm afraid.

- I'd favour a short concise read (7 mins?) with links out to Jiras for more detail and to help show transparent progress

- Potential users currently observing the project is a very important audience IMO (en-premise Hadoop users, enterprise users seeking Kerberos support, AWS cloud users etc). Might it help for us to identify the audiences the roadmap is intended for to help steer the style?


On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 6:35 PM Kenneth Knowles <kenn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Personally, I think cwiki is best for dev community, while important stuff for users should go on the web site. But experimenting with the content on cwiki seems like a quick and easy thing to try out.

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 1:43 AM Maximilian Michels <mxm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Great idea, Kenn!

How about putting the roadmap in the Confluent wiki? We can link the
page from the web site.

The timeline should not be too specific but should give users an idea of
what to expect.

On 10.10.18 22:43, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> What about a link in the menu. It should contain a list of features and
> estimate date with probable error (like "in 5 months +- 1 months)
> otherwise it does not bring much IMHO.
> Le mer. 10 oct. 2018 23:32, Kenneth Knowles <kenn@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:kenn@xxxxxxxxxx>> a écrit :
>     Hi all,
>     We made an attempt at putting together a sort of roadmap [1] in the
>     past and also some wide-ranging threads about what could be on it
>     [2]. and I think we should pick it up again. The description I
>     really liked was "strategic and user impacting initiatives (ongoing
>     and future) in an easy to consume format" [3]. It seems that we had
>     feedback asking for a Roadmap at the London summit [4].
>     I would like to first focus on meta-questions rather than what would
>     be on it:
>       - What style / format should it have to be most useful for users?
>       - Where should it be presented?
>     I asked a couple people to try to find the roadmap on the web site,
>     as a test, and they didn't really know which tab to click on first,
>     so that's a starting problem. They didn't even find Works In
>     Progress [5] after clicking Contribute. The level of detail of that
>     list varies widely.
>     I'd also love to see hypothetical formats for it, to see how to
>     balance pithiness with crucial details.
>     Kenn
>     [1]
>     https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4e1fffa2fde8e750c6d769bf4335853ad05b360b8bd248ad119cc185@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>     [2]
>     https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f750f288af8dab3f468b869bf5a3f473094f4764db419567f33805d0@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>     [3]
>     https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/60d0333fd9e2c7be2f55e33b0d145f2908e3fe645c008636c86e1133@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>     [4]
>     https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/aa1306da25029dff12a49ba3ce63f2caf6a5f8ba73eda879c8403f3f@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>     [5] https://beam.apache.org/contribute/#works-in-progress