You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flink.apache.org by Hequn Cheng <he...@apache.org> on 2020/02/18 08:02:49 UTC
[DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
Hi everyone,
Currently, when we create a FLIP we follow the FLIP process in the Flink
Improvement Proposals wiki[1]. The process mainly includes the following
steps:
1. Create a FLIP wiki page.
2. Raise the discussion on the mailing list.
3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal adopted.
There is also a discussion[2] on the FLIP process which may be helpful for
you.
As it is not allowed commented on the wiki, we usually have a google doc
for the discussion at step 2 and whenever there is a change we need to pick
it to the wiki page. This makes things somehow redundant. To solve this, we
can rearrange the step a little bit and avoid the pick:
1. Raise the discussion on the mailing list. The subject of the thread is
of the format [DISCUSS][FLIP] {your FLIP heading}. Also, the design doc
should follow the FLIP-Template strictly. (The [FLIP] tag is used to inform
people that it is a FLIP discussion and more attention should be paid.)
2. Create a FLIP wiki page once we reached an agreement on the discussion.
We can simply copy the google doc into the FLIP wiki page.
3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal
adopted. It should be noted that we should always vote on a FLIP wiki page
instead of a google doc. The wiki page is the final version of the google
doc.
This can bring some benefits:
1. Make the discussion more effective as we force people to write and
discuss on a google doc that follows the FLIP template which
includes necessary information such as Motivation, Interfaces, Proposed
changes, etc.
2. Avoid redundant pick from google doc to Flink wiki page. Once we reached
an agreement on the discussion, we can simply copy the google doc into the
FLIP wiki page.
3. As adopted FLIP should mostly be "immutable", we can even make the wiki
page PMC or committer editable since it just needs a simple copy from the
google doc.
Looking forward to your feedback!
Best,
Hequn
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals
[2]
http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-META-FLIP-Sticking-or-not-to-a-strict-FLIP-voting-process-td29978.html#a29988
Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
Posted by Xintong Song <to...@gmail.com>.
+1 for David's proposal.
I think it happens a lot that we implement the FLIPs differently from the
original proposals, based on more understandings during the implementation.
Some times the differences are even not minors, which of course needs
consensus and maybe a vote on the mailing list. Moreover, some of the FLIP
wiki pages are referenced in user docs, release notes and blogposts. I
think it's important to keep the FLIPs updated.
We actually did that for FLIP-49 and FLIP-53 that released in 1.10,
updating the parts which are implemented differently according to ML
discussions. But we made the changed directly on the outdated contents. I
think, as David proposed, having a separate section and for such changes
might be better. We can add it to the FLIP template, to be filled in after
the FLIP is released.
@Hequn
What I don't get is that, if we do not allow comments on google docs, how
is it different from using wiki pages from the very beginning when
discussion is raised? Please correct me if I was wrong, it seems the
differences exist only if we make the wiki pages editable to committers
only. However, I don't see the necessity for having a strict wiki access,
because people can get notifications on modifications to the wiki pages by
simply *watch* them, unlike google docs where the people with edit access
can change the doc silently.
+1 to put the name of person who drives and is responsible for the FLIP doc
on the wiki page. Not sure whether it has to be a committer. This should
help clearly define who is responsible for keep the FLIP status updated,
and inform other people about whom to ping if they find a FLIP is not
properly updated.
Thank you~
Xintong Song
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 1:52 AM David Anderson <da...@ververica.com> wrote:
> I'd like to bring up another problem that I see with the current FLIP
> process, which relates to what happens after a FLIP has been implemented.
>
> A few months ago I read through all of the then existing FLIPs. My reason
> for doing so is that on a great many topics, the only "documentation" we
> have is the FLIPs, and there were several parts of Flink that I wanted to
> understand better.
>
> But I put documentation in "quotes" above because there are significant
> problems with trying to rely on the FLIPs to know what's going on:
>
> (1) As has already been pointed out, in quite a few cases the status was
> never updated.
> (2) In some cases, what was ultimately implemented does not match the FLIP.
> Often these discrepancies are pretty minor: for example, during the
> implementation classes get renamed from what had been proposed, interfaces
> get adjusted a bit, etc. And sometimes a FLIP is only partially
> implemented.
> (3) And I believe there are cases where past FLIPs have been made at least
> partially obsolete by more recent development.
>
> As a step toward making the FLIPs more useful, I would like to propose that
> when the author(s) go back to update the status from Accepted to Released,
> if they would add a section at the end outlining any ways in which the
> implementation being released differs from what is described in the FLIP.
>
> David
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 1:05 PM Hequn Cheng <he...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I appreciate all the feedback! Let me try to explain more.
> >
> > As there are a lot of people show concerns about the google doc.
> > Let’s make an assumption first that the comment on the google doc is not
> > allowed!
> > Let’s make an assumption first that the comment on the google doc is not
> > allowed!!
> > Let’s make an assumption first that the comment on the google doc is not
> > allowed!!!
> > (As for whether to allow (minor)comments on the google doc. I will raise
> > another discussion if we reach a consensus on this one.)
> >
> > The main purpose of this discussion is to improve the current FLIP
> process.
> > Before we introduce the improvements, let’s first take a look at the
> > problems we have. This is the motivation why this discussion is raised.
> The
> > problems I find are listed as follows:
> > 1. During the FLIP discussion, whenever there is a change, we need to
> pick
> > the change to the wiki page. This is somehow redundant.
> > 2. Even after the proposal has been finalized, the wiki page can be
> changed
> > as it is editable to everyone. However, any change to an adopted FLIP
> > requires a new voting process.
> > 3. The FLIP page is not well maintained, e.g., the status of many FLIPs
> > were not updated in time. You can find there are a lot of FLIPs with the
> > target release of 1.10 on the current wiki page.
> >
> > Next, let’s see how the problems listed above can be solved by the new
> > process. I will list the new process again for discussion convenience.
> >
> > 1. Raise the discussion on the mailing list. The subject of the thread is
> > of the format [DISCUSS][FLIP] {your FLIP heading}. Also, the design doc
> > should follow the FLIP-Template strictly. (The [FLIP] tag is used to
> inform
> > people that it is a FLIP discussion and more attention should be paid.)
> > 2. Create a FLIP wiki page(by a committer who wants to shepherd the FLIP)
> > once we reach an agreement on the discussion. We can simply copy the
> google
> > doc into the FLIP wiki page. The name of the shepherd should also be
> listed
> > on the wiki page.
> > 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal
> > adopted. It should be noted that we should always vote on a FLIP wiki
> page
> > instead of a google doc. The wiki page is the final version of the google
> > doc.
> >
> > According to the new process:
> > Problem1 can be improved since we only create the FLIP wiki page when we
> > reached an agreement.
> > Problem2 can be improved since we can make the FLIP wiki page committer
> > editable. Not everyone can change the wiki page freely as it is now.
> > Problem3 can be improved as the FLIP wiki page is created and updated by
> > the committer. Committers are assumed to be more active than
> contributors.
> > This can also be easier to info the guy who is responsible for updating
> the
> > wiki page.
> >
> > Looking forward to your feedback!
> >
> > Best,
> > Hequn
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:20 PM Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for Aljoscha's proposal.
> > >
> > > This, of course, does not mean that one cannot use Google docs in order
> > to
> > > prepare the FLIP discussion.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Till
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:15 AM Xintong Song <to...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm also not a fun of discussing FLIPs with google docs.
> > > >
> > > > I think google docs is probably ok for smaller scope early
> discussions
> > > > before raising the discussion on the mailing list, when the draft is
> > not
> > > > completed and is expected to change frequently. Once it is proposed
> to
> > > the
> > > > community, as many people already mentioned, google doc changes are
> > very
> > > > hard to track.
> > > >
> > > > If I understand correctly, what Jincheng suggested is to use google
> doc
> > > but
> > > > not allowing discussions and modifications on it, except for minor
> > > issues.
> > > > Regarding that, my concerns are:
> > > > - How do we define "minor issues"? Are these typo and grammar issues
> > > only?
> > > > - If so, I think it is the proposer's responsibility to provide
> > > > well-written docs with less such mistakes, if not none. Most editors
> > > > provide helpful spelling and grammar checks.
> > > > - If not, then people may have different opinions on whether a
> > comment
> > > is
> > > > minor or not.
> > > >
> > > > Another advantage for the wiki page is that, once you watch it you
> can
> > > > always get email notifications on modifications to that page. AFAIK,
> > for
> > > > google doc you get notifications only if someone replies your
> comments,
> > > > unless you're the owner of the doc.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you~
> > > >
> > > > Xintong Song
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:57 PM jincheng sun <
> > sunjincheng121@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for bring up the discussion @Hequn!
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with some concerns raised above, however, I would like to
> > give
> > > my
> > > > > +1 for the proposal and I would like to share my thoughts:
> > > > >
> > > > > If I understand correctly, the proposal doesn’t encourage people to
> > > > discuss
> > > > > in the google doc, the first step of the proposal is to raise the
> > > > > discussion on the mailing list.
> > > > >
> > > > > It’s common sense to discuss on the mailing list even with a google
> > > doc.
> > > > > This is also the current status and works well. Most people know
> that
> > > we
> > > > > should focus the discussion on the mailing list especially for
> those
> > > > about
> > > > > architecture or something pretty important for discussing which is
> > what
> > > > we
> > > > > want to left the history.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe the google doc brings more benefits for us than costs.
> The
> > > > > problem is how we use it, not eliminate it. There are still some
> > > benefits
> > > > > that we can get from it. For example, It is a good place to comment
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > document for some minor problems, e.g., typos or grammatical
> > problems.
> > > > > Correcting these problems could help us to achieve a high-quality
> > > > document.
> > > > > It is also unnecessarily to left history for these kinds of
> problems.
> > > If
> > > > we
> > > > > put all these comments into the mailing list. The mailing list
> would
> > be
> > > > > flooded. Meanwhile, it’s hard to comment on these problems on the
> > > mailing
> > > > > list if the document is very long.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for the FLIP process, it’s a good idea to make our wiki
> > “immutable”
> > > so
> > > > > that we can make the wiki management better, i.e., only editable by
> > PMC
> > > > or
> > > > > committer(This can be discussed in another thread).
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think? Would be great if more people can share thoughts
> > > here!
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Jincheng
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yuan Mei <yu...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月19日周三 下午12:41写道：
> > > > >
> > > > > > It is difficult to draw a clear cut between small and big issues.
> > > > Hence I
> > > > > > would prefer to stick to only one way for discussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would try to avoid Google Docs if having other ways mainly
> > because
> > > of
> > > > > two
> > > > > > reasons:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Google Docs are not always accessible to everyone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Discussion on Google docs is difficult to track
> > > > > > - new comments are notified through email
> > > > > > - discussion history is hard to follow once a comment is
> > resolved
> > > > > > - limited spaces on the page to display e.t.c
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yuan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:52 AM Jingsong Li <
> > jingsonglee0@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all, thanks for launching this discussion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > About eliminating Google Docs. I agree with Zhijiang, I share
> my
> > > > > concern
> > > > > > > about it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the FLIP Driver is a Flink newer or the FLIP is very big and
> > > > > > > complicated. His/Her design maybe need change many many things,
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > > > situation, Google doc is good to be reviewed by community. If
> all
> > > > > > > discussions are in ML, It's going to be very messy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So I think can keep this principle:
> > > > > > > - Small issues can be discussed on Google doc.
> > > > > > > - Big issues, or fundamental design issues, or API issues, are
> > > > > discussed
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > ML.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Jingsong Lee
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:22 AM Zhijiang <
> > > wangzhijiang999@aliyun.com
> > > > > > > .invalid>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for launching this discussion and also agree with the
> > > > opinions
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > Kostas, Timo and Aljoscha.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The proposed reasons for eliminating google doc are very
> > > > reasonable,
> > > > > > > > especially the access limitation for some people in China.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Besides that, another conservative option is to make google
> doc
> > > as
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > optional procedure, not a must procedure in practice, and
> > > > > > > > the ML discussion is still the formal must procedure to
> follow
> > > > > firstly.
> > > > > > > > And we can also kindly list these specific
> > considerations/reasons
> > > > > > > > for google doc concerns as said below in the guideline doc.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To do so, we still retain this option for some people who
> > prefer
> > > to
> > > > > > > google
> > > > > > > > doc or willing to provide it in some corner cases.
> > > > > > > > Of course I am also happy to eliminate google doc completely.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Zhijiang
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > From:Kostas Kloudas <kk...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > Send Time:2020 Feb. 18 (Tue.) 23:03
> > > > > > > > To:dev <de...@flink.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 to what Aljoscha and Timo are proposing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would lean towards eliminating Google Docs altogether.
> > > > > > > > I think they served a purpose when discussions were among 3
> to
> > 4
> > > > > > > > people but with the current size of the community and the
> > amount
> > > of
> > > > > > > > participants per discussion they become difficult to follow.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Kostas
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Timo Walther <
> > twalthr@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 to what Aljoscha said.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The past has shown that discussions in Google docs do not
> > reach
> > > > all
> > > > > > > > > interested parties and the tracability of design decisions
> > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > difficult. Google services are also partially inaccessible
> in
> > > > > certain
> > > > > > > > > parts of world.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We should actually do the opposite and not allow Google
> docs
> > as
> > > > > FLIPs
> > > > > > > > > anymore. Commenting should be disabled by default.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Timo
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 18.02.20 15:20, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > thanks for starting this discussion!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > However, I have a somewhat opposing opinion to this: we
> > > should
> > > > > > > disallow
> > > > > > > > > > using Google Docs for FLIPs and FLIP discussions and
> follow
> > > the
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > established process more strictly.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My reasons for this are:
> > > > > > > > > > - discussions on the Google Doc are not reflected in
> > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > infrastructure
> > > > > > > > > > - discussions on Google Docs are non-linear and hard to
> > > > follow
> > > > > > > > > > - when discussions on Google Docs are resolved these
> > > > > discussions
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > not visible/re-readable anymore (I know there's history,
> > but
> > > > meh)
> > > > > > > > > > - if discussion is kept purely to the ML this is easily
> > > > > > observable
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > any interested parties and it's there if somewhat want's
> to
> > > > > recheck
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > discussion in the future
> > > > > > > > > > - going from Google Doc to Wiki is an extra step that
> > seems
> > > > > > > > > > unnecessary to me (but that's just personal opinion, I
> > mean,
> > > I
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > have to do the extra work here...)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > Aljoscha
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 18.02.20 09:02, Hequn Cheng wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> Hi everyone,
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Currently, when we create a FLIP we follow the FLIP
> > process
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Flink
> > > > > > > > > >> Improvement Proposals wiki[1]. The process mainly
> includes
> > > the
> > > > > > > > following
> > > > > > > > > >> steps:
> > > > > > > > > >> 1. Create a FLIP wiki page.
> > > > > > > > > >> 2. Raise the discussion on the mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have
> the
> > > > > > proposal
> > > > > > > > > >> adopted.
> > > > > > > > > >> There is also a discussion[2] on the FLIP process which
> > may
> > > be
> > > > > > > helpful
> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > >> you.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> As it is not allowed commented on the wiki, we usually
> > have
> > > a
> > > > > > google
> > > > > > > > doc
> > > > > > > > > >> for the discussion at step 2 and whenever there is a
> > change
> > > we
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> pick
> > > > > > > > > >> it to the wiki page. This makes things somehow
> redundant.
> > To
> > > > > solve
> > > > > > > > > >> this, we
> > > > > > > > > >> can rearrange the step a little bit and avoid the pick:
> > > > > > > > > >> 1. Raise the discussion on the mailing list. The subject
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > thread is
> > > > > > > > > >> of the format [DISCUSS][FLIP] {your FLIP heading}. Also,
> > the
> > > > > > design
> > > > > > > > doc
> > > > > > > > > >> should follow the FLIP-Template strictly. (The [FLIP]
> tag
> > is
> > > > > used
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> inform
> > > > > > > > > >> people that it is a FLIP discussion and more attention
> > > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > paid.)
> > > > > > > > > >> 2. Create a FLIP wiki page once we reached an agreement
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> discussion.
> > > > > > > > > >> We can simply copy the google doc into the FLIP wiki
> page.
> > > > > > > > > >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have
> the
> > > > > > proposal
> > > > > > > > > >> adopted. It should be noted that we should always vote
> on
> > a
> > > > FLIP
> > > > > > > wiki
> > > > > > > > > >> page
> > > > > > > > > >> instead of a google doc. The wiki page is the final
> > version
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > google
> > > > > > > > > >> doc.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> This can bring some benefits:
> > > > > > > > > >> 1. Make the discussion more effective as we force people
> > to
> > > > > write
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> discuss on a google doc that follows the FLIP template
> > which
> > > > > > > > > >> includes necessary information such as Motivation,
> > > Interfaces,
> > > > > > > > Proposed
> > > > > > > > > >> changes, etc.
> > > > > > > > > >> 2. Avoid redundant pick from google doc to Flink wiki
> > page.
> > > > Once
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >> reached
> > > > > > > > > >> an agreement on the discussion, we can simply copy the
> > > google
> > > > > doc
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> FLIP wiki page.
> > > > > > > > > >> 3. As adopted FLIP should mostly be "immutable", we can
> > even
> > > > > make
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> wiki
> > > > > > > > > >> page PMC or committer editable since it just needs a
> > simple
> > > > copy
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> google doc.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Looking forward to your feedback!
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > > > > >> Hequn
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> [2]
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-META-FLIP-Sticking-or-not-to-a-strict-FLIP-voting-process-td29978.html#a29988
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best, Jingsong Lee
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
Posted by David Anderson <da...@ververica.com>.
I'd like to bring up another problem that I see with the current FLIP
process, which relates to what happens after a FLIP has been implemented.
A few months ago I read through all of the then existing FLIPs. My reason
for doing so is that on a great many topics, the only "documentation" we
have is the FLIPs, and there were several parts of Flink that I wanted to
understand better.
But I put documentation in "quotes" above because there are significant
problems with trying to rely on the FLIPs to know what's going on:
(1) As has already been pointed out, in quite a few cases the status was
never updated.
(2) In some cases, what was ultimately implemented does not match the FLIP.
Often these discrepancies are pretty minor: for example, during the
implementation classes get renamed from what had been proposed, interfaces
get adjusted a bit, etc. And sometimes a FLIP is only partially
implemented.
(3) And I believe there are cases where past FLIPs have been made at least
partially obsolete by more recent development.
As a step toward making the FLIPs more useful, I would like to propose that
when the author(s) go back to update the status from Accepted to Released,
if they would add a section at the end outlining any ways in which the
implementation being released differs from what is described in the FLIP.
David
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 1:05 PM Hequn Cheng <he...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I appreciate all the feedback! Let me try to explain more.
>
> As there are a lot of people show concerns about the google doc.
> Let’s make an assumption first that the comment on the google doc is not
> allowed!
> Let’s make an assumption first that the comment on the google doc is not
> allowed!!
> Let’s make an assumption first that the comment on the google doc is not
> allowed!!!
> (As for whether to allow (minor)comments on the google doc. I will raise
> another discussion if we reach a consensus on this one.)
>
> The main purpose of this discussion is to improve the current FLIP process.
> Before we introduce the improvements, let’s first take a look at the
> problems we have. This is the motivation why this discussion is raised. The
> problems I find are listed as follows:
> 1. During the FLIP discussion, whenever there is a change, we need to pick
> the change to the wiki page. This is somehow redundant.
> 2. Even after the proposal has been finalized, the wiki page can be changed
> as it is editable to everyone. However, any change to an adopted FLIP
> requires a new voting process.
> 3. The FLIP page is not well maintained, e.g., the status of many FLIPs
> were not updated in time. You can find there are a lot of FLIPs with the
> target release of 1.10 on the current wiki page.
>
> Next, let’s see how the problems listed above can be solved by the new
> process. I will list the new process again for discussion convenience.
>
> 1. Raise the discussion on the mailing list. The subject of the thread is
> of the format [DISCUSS][FLIP] {your FLIP heading}. Also, the design doc
> should follow the FLIP-Template strictly. (The [FLIP] tag is used to inform
> people that it is a FLIP discussion and more attention should be paid.)
> 2. Create a FLIP wiki page(by a committer who wants to shepherd the FLIP)
> once we reach an agreement on the discussion. We can simply copy the google
> doc into the FLIP wiki page. The name of the shepherd should also be listed
> on the wiki page.
> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal
> adopted. It should be noted that we should always vote on a FLIP wiki page
> instead of a google doc. The wiki page is the final version of the google
> doc.
>
> According to the new process:
> Problem1 can be improved since we only create the FLIP wiki page when we
> reached an agreement.
> Problem2 can be improved since we can make the FLIP wiki page committer
> editable. Not everyone can change the wiki page freely as it is now.
> Problem3 can be improved as the FLIP wiki page is created and updated by
> the committer. Committers are assumed to be more active than contributors.
> This can also be easier to info the guy who is responsible for updating the
> wiki page.
>
> Looking forward to your feedback!
>
> Best,
> Hequn
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:20 PM Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for Aljoscha's proposal.
> >
> > This, of course, does not mean that one cannot use Google docs in order
> to
> > prepare the FLIP discussion.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:15 AM Xintong Song <to...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm also not a fun of discussing FLIPs with google docs.
> > >
> > > I think google docs is probably ok for smaller scope early discussions
> > > before raising the discussion on the mailing list, when the draft is
> not
> > > completed and is expected to change frequently. Once it is proposed to
> > the
> > > community, as many people already mentioned, google doc changes are
> very
> > > hard to track.
> > >
> > > If I understand correctly, what Jincheng suggested is to use google doc
> > but
> > > not allowing discussions and modifications on it, except for minor
> > issues.
> > > Regarding that, my concerns are:
> > > - How do we define "minor issues"? Are these typo and grammar issues
> > only?
> > > - If so, I think it is the proposer's responsibility to provide
> > > well-written docs with less such mistakes, if not none. Most editors
> > > provide helpful spelling and grammar checks.
> > > - If not, then people may have different opinions on whether a
> comment
> > is
> > > minor or not.
> > >
> > > Another advantage for the wiki page is that, once you watch it you can
> > > always get email notifications on modifications to that page. AFAIK,
> for
> > > google doc you get notifications only if someone replies your comments,
> > > unless you're the owner of the doc.
> > >
> > > Thank you~
> > >
> > > Xintong Song
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:57 PM jincheng sun <
> sunjincheng121@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for bring up the discussion @Hequn!
> > > >
> > > > I agree with some concerns raised above, however, I would like to
> give
> > my
> > > > +1 for the proposal and I would like to share my thoughts:
> > > >
> > > > If I understand correctly, the proposal doesn’t encourage people to
> > > discuss
> > > > in the google doc, the first step of the proposal is to raise the
> > > > discussion on the mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > It’s common sense to discuss on the mailing list even with a google
> > doc.
> > > > This is also the current status and works well. Most people know that
> > we
> > > > should focus the discussion on the mailing list especially for those
> > > about
> > > > architecture or something pretty important for discussing which is
> what
> > > we
> > > > want to left the history.
> > > >
> > > > I believe the google doc brings more benefits for us than costs. The
> > > > problem is how we use it, not eliminate it. There are still some
> > benefits
> > > > that we can get from it. For example, It is a good place to comment
> on
> > > the
> > > > document for some minor problems, e.g., typos or grammatical
> problems.
> > > > Correcting these problems could help us to achieve a high-quality
> > > document.
> > > > It is also unnecessarily to left history for these kinds of problems.
> > If
> > > we
> > > > put all these comments into the mailing list. The mailing list would
> be
> > > > flooded. Meanwhile, it’s hard to comment on these problems on the
> > mailing
> > > > list if the document is very long.
> > > >
> > > > As for the FLIP process, it’s a good idea to make our wiki
> “immutable”
> > so
> > > > that we can make the wiki management better, i.e., only editable by
> PMC
> > > or
> > > > committer(This can be discussed in another thread).
> > > >
> > > > What do you think? Would be great if more people can share thoughts
> > here!
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Jincheng
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yuan Mei <yu...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月19日周三 下午12:41写道：
> > > >
> > > > > It is difficult to draw a clear cut between small and big issues.
> > > Hence I
> > > > > would prefer to stick to only one way for discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would try to avoid Google Docs if having other ways mainly
> because
> > of
> > > > two
> > > > > reasons:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Google Docs are not always accessible to everyone.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Discussion on Google docs is difficult to track
> > > > > - new comments are notified through email
> > > > > - discussion history is hard to follow once a comment is
> resolved
> > > > > - limited spaces on the page to display e.t.c
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best
> > > > >
> > > > > Yuan
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:52 AM Jingsong Li <
> jingsonglee0@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all, thanks for launching this discussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > About eliminating Google Docs. I agree with Zhijiang, I share my
> > > > concern
> > > > > > about it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the FLIP Driver is a Flink newer or the FLIP is very big and
> > > > > > complicated. His/Her design maybe need change many many things,
> in
> > > this
> > > > > > situation, Google doc is good to be reviewed by community. If all
> > > > > > discussions are in ML, It's going to be very messy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I think can keep this principle:
> > > > > > - Small issues can be discussed on Google doc.
> > > > > > - Big issues, or fundamental design issues, or API issues, are
> > > > discussed
> > > > > in
> > > > > > ML.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Jingsong Lee
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:22 AM Zhijiang <
> > wangzhijiang999@aliyun.com
> > > > > > .invalid>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for launching this discussion and also agree with the
> > > opinions
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > Kostas, Timo and Aljoscha.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The proposed reasons for eliminating google doc are very
> > > reasonable,
> > > > > > > especially the access limitation for some people in China.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Besides that, another conservative option is to make google doc
> > as
> > > an
> > > > > > > optional procedure, not a must procedure in practice, and
> > > > > > > the ML discussion is still the formal must procedure to follow
> > > > firstly.
> > > > > > > And we can also kindly list these specific
> considerations/reasons
> > > > > > > for google doc concerns as said below in the guideline doc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To do so, we still retain this option for some people who
> prefer
> > to
> > > > > > google
> > > > > > > doc or willing to provide it in some corner cases.
> > > > > > > Of course I am also happy to eliminate google doc completely.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Zhijiang
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > From:Kostas Kloudas <kk...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > Send Time:2020 Feb. 18 (Tue.) 23:03
> > > > > > > To:dev <de...@flink.apache.org>
> > > > > > > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 to what Aljoscha and Timo are proposing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would lean towards eliminating Google Docs altogether.
> > > > > > > I think they served a purpose when discussions were among 3 to
> 4
> > > > > > > people but with the current size of the community and the
> amount
> > of
> > > > > > > participants per discussion they become difficult to follow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Kostas
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Timo Walther <
> twalthr@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 to what Aljoscha said.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The past has shown that discussions in Google docs do not
> reach
> > > all
> > > > > > > > interested parties and the tracability of design decisions
> > > becomes
> > > > > > > > difficult. Google services are also partially inaccessible in
> > > > certain
> > > > > > > > parts of world.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We should actually do the opposite and not allow Google docs
> as
> > > > FLIPs
> > > > > > > > anymore. Commenting should be disabled by default.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > Timo
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 18.02.20 15:20, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > thanks for starting this discussion!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, I have a somewhat opposing opinion to this: we
> > should
> > > > > > disallow
> > > > > > > > > using Google Docs for FLIPs and FLIP discussions and follow
> > the
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > established process more strictly.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My reasons for this are:
> > > > > > > > > - discussions on the Google Doc are not reflected in
> Apache
> > > > > > > > > infrastructure
> > > > > > > > > - discussions on Google Docs are non-linear and hard to
> > > follow
> > > > > > > > > - when discussions on Google Docs are resolved these
> > > > discussions
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > not visible/re-readable anymore (I know there's history,
> but
> > > meh)
> > > > > > > > > - if discussion is kept purely to the ML this is easily
> > > > > observable
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > any interested parties and it's there if somewhat want's to
> > > > recheck
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > discussion in the future
> > > > > > > > > - going from Google Doc to Wiki is an extra step that
> seems
> > > > > > > > > unnecessary to me (but that's just personal opinion, I
> mean,
> > I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > have to do the extra work here...)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > Aljoscha
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 18.02.20 09:02, Hequn Cheng wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> Hi everyone,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Currently, when we create a FLIP we follow the FLIP
> process
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > Flink
> > > > > > > > >> Improvement Proposals wiki[1]. The process mainly includes
> > the
> > > > > > > following
> > > > > > > > >> steps:
> > > > > > > > >> 1. Create a FLIP wiki page.
> > > > > > > > >> 2. Raise the discussion on the mailing list.
> > > > > > > > >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the
> > > > > proposal
> > > > > > > > >> adopted.
> > > > > > > > >> There is also a discussion[2] on the FLIP process which
> may
> > be
> > > > > > helpful
> > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> you.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> As it is not allowed commented on the wiki, we usually
> have
> > a
> > > > > google
> > > > > > > doc
> > > > > > > > >> for the discussion at step 2 and whenever there is a
> change
> > we
> > > > > need
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> pick
> > > > > > > > >> it to the wiki page. This makes things somehow redundant.
> To
> > > > solve
> > > > > > > > >> this, we
> > > > > > > > >> can rearrange the step a little bit and avoid the pick:
> > > > > > > > >> 1. Raise the discussion on the mailing list. The subject
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > thread is
> > > > > > > > >> of the format [DISCUSS][FLIP] {your FLIP heading}. Also,
> the
> > > > > design
> > > > > > > doc
> > > > > > > > >> should follow the FLIP-Template strictly. (The [FLIP] tag
> is
> > > > used
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> inform
> > > > > > > > >> people that it is a FLIP discussion and more attention
> > should
> > > be
> > > > > > > paid.)
> > > > > > > > >> 2. Create a FLIP wiki page once we reached an agreement on
> > the
> > > > > > > > >> discussion.
> > > > > > > > >> We can simply copy the google doc into the FLIP wiki page.
> > > > > > > > >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the
> > > > > proposal
> > > > > > > > >> adopted. It should be noted that we should always vote on
> a
> > > FLIP
> > > > > > wiki
> > > > > > > > >> page
> > > > > > > > >> instead of a google doc. The wiki page is the final
> version
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > google
> > > > > > > > >> doc.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> This can bring some benefits:
> > > > > > > > >> 1. Make the discussion more effective as we force people
> to
> > > > write
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> discuss on a google doc that follows the FLIP template
> which
> > > > > > > > >> includes necessary information such as Motivation,
> > Interfaces,
> > > > > > > Proposed
> > > > > > > > >> changes, etc.
> > > > > > > > >> 2. Avoid redundant pick from google doc to Flink wiki
> page.
> > > Once
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> reached
> > > > > > > > >> an agreement on the discussion, we can simply copy the
> > google
> > > > doc
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> FLIP wiki page.
> > > > > > > > >> 3. As adopted FLIP should mostly be "immutable", we can
> even
> > > > make
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> wiki
> > > > > > > > >> page PMC or committer editable since it just needs a
> simple
> > > copy
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> google doc.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Looking forward to your feedback!
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > > > >> Hequn
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> [2]
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-META-FLIP-Sticking-or-not-to-a-strict-FLIP-voting-process-td29978.html#a29988
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best, Jingsong Lee
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
Posted by Hequn Cheng <he...@apache.org>.
Hi everyone,
I appreciate all the feedback! Let me try to explain more.
As there are a lot of people show concerns about the google doc.
Let’s make an assumption first that the comment on the google doc is not
allowed!
Let’s make an assumption first that the comment on the google doc is not
allowed!!
Let’s make an assumption first that the comment on the google doc is not
allowed!!!
(As for whether to allow (minor)comments on the google doc. I will raise
another discussion if we reach a consensus on this one.)
The main purpose of this discussion is to improve the current FLIP process.
Before we introduce the improvements, let’s first take a look at the
problems we have. This is the motivation why this discussion is raised. The
problems I find are listed as follows:
1. During the FLIP discussion, whenever there is a change, we need to pick
the change to the wiki page. This is somehow redundant.
2. Even after the proposal has been finalized, the wiki page can be changed
as it is editable to everyone. However, any change to an adopted FLIP
requires a new voting process.
3. The FLIP page is not well maintained, e.g., the status of many FLIPs
were not updated in time. You can find there are a lot of FLIPs with the
target release of 1.10 on the current wiki page.
Next, let’s see how the problems listed above can be solved by the new
process. I will list the new process again for discussion convenience.
1. Raise the discussion on the mailing list. The subject of the thread is
of the format [DISCUSS][FLIP] {your FLIP heading}. Also, the design doc
should follow the FLIP-Template strictly. (The [FLIP] tag is used to inform
people that it is a FLIP discussion and more attention should be paid.)
2. Create a FLIP wiki page(by a committer who wants to shepherd the FLIP)
once we reach an agreement on the discussion. We can simply copy the google
doc into the FLIP wiki page. The name of the shepherd should also be listed
on the wiki page.
3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal
adopted. It should be noted that we should always vote on a FLIP wiki page
instead of a google doc. The wiki page is the final version of the google
doc.
According to the new process:
Problem1 can be improved since we only create the FLIP wiki page when we
reached an agreement.
Problem2 can be improved since we can make the FLIP wiki page committer
editable. Not everyone can change the wiki page freely as it is now.
Problem3 can be improved as the FLIP wiki page is created and updated by
the committer. Committers are assumed to be more active than contributors.
This can also be easier to info the guy who is responsible for updating the
wiki page.
Looking forward to your feedback!
Best,
Hequn
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:20 PM Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 for Aljoscha's proposal.
>
> This, of course, does not mean that one cannot use Google docs in order to
> prepare the FLIP discussion.
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:15 AM Xintong Song <to...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm also not a fun of discussing FLIPs with google docs.
> >
> > I think google docs is probably ok for smaller scope early discussions
> > before raising the discussion on the mailing list, when the draft is not
> > completed and is expected to change frequently. Once it is proposed to
> the
> > community, as many people already mentioned, google doc changes are very
> > hard to track.
> >
> > If I understand correctly, what Jincheng suggested is to use google doc
> but
> > not allowing discussions and modifications on it, except for minor
> issues.
> > Regarding that, my concerns are:
> > - How do we define "minor issues"? Are these typo and grammar issues
> only?
> > - If so, I think it is the proposer's responsibility to provide
> > well-written docs with less such mistakes, if not none. Most editors
> > provide helpful spelling and grammar checks.
> > - If not, then people may have different opinions on whether a comment
> is
> > minor or not.
> >
> > Another advantage for the wiki page is that, once you watch it you can
> > always get email notifications on modifications to that page. AFAIK, for
> > google doc you get notifications only if someone replies your comments,
> > unless you're the owner of the doc.
> >
> > Thank you~
> >
> > Xintong Song
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:57 PM jincheng sun <su...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Thanks for bring up the discussion @Hequn!
> > >
> > > I agree with some concerns raised above, however, I would like to give
> my
> > > +1 for the proposal and I would like to share my thoughts:
> > >
> > > If I understand correctly, the proposal doesn’t encourage people to
> > discuss
> > > in the google doc, the first step of the proposal is to raise the
> > > discussion on the mailing list.
> > >
> > > It’s common sense to discuss on the mailing list even with a google
> doc.
> > > This is also the current status and works well. Most people know that
> we
> > > should focus the discussion on the mailing list especially for those
> > about
> > > architecture or something pretty important for discussing which is what
> > we
> > > want to left the history.
> > >
> > > I believe the google doc brings more benefits for us than costs. The
> > > problem is how we use it, not eliminate it. There are still some
> benefits
> > > that we can get from it. For example, It is a good place to comment on
> > the
> > > document for some minor problems, e.g., typos or grammatical problems.
> > > Correcting these problems could help us to achieve a high-quality
> > document.
> > > It is also unnecessarily to left history for these kinds of problems.
> If
> > we
> > > put all these comments into the mailing list. The mailing list would be
> > > flooded. Meanwhile, it’s hard to comment on these problems on the
> mailing
> > > list if the document is very long.
> > >
> > > As for the FLIP process, it’s a good idea to make our wiki “immutable”
> so
> > > that we can make the wiki management better, i.e., only editable by PMC
> > or
> > > committer(This can be discussed in another thread).
> > >
> > > What do you think? Would be great if more people can share thoughts
> here!
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Jincheng
> > >
> > >
> > > Yuan Mei <yu...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月19日周三 下午12:41写道：
> > >
> > > > It is difficult to draw a clear cut between small and big issues.
> > Hence I
> > > > would prefer to stick to only one way for discussion.
> > > >
> > > > I would try to avoid Google Docs if having other ways mainly because
> of
> > > two
> > > > reasons:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Google Docs are not always accessible to everyone.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Discussion on Google docs is difficult to track
> > > > - new comments are notified through email
> > > > - discussion history is hard to follow once a comment is resolved
> > > > - limited spaces on the page to display e.t.c
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > >
> > > > Yuan
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:52 AM Jingsong Li <jingsonglee0@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all, thanks for launching this discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > About eliminating Google Docs. I agree with Zhijiang, I share my
> > > concern
> > > > > about it.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the FLIP Driver is a Flink newer or the FLIP is very big and
> > > > > complicated. His/Her design maybe need change many many things, in
> > this
> > > > > situation, Google doc is good to be reviewed by community. If all
> > > > > discussions are in ML, It's going to be very messy.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I think can keep this principle:
> > > > > - Small issues can be discussed on Google doc.
> > > > > - Big issues, or fundamental design issues, or API issues, are
> > > discussed
> > > > in
> > > > > ML.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Jingsong Lee
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:22 AM Zhijiang <
> wangzhijiang999@aliyun.com
> > > > > .invalid>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for launching this discussion and also agree with the
> > opinions
> > > > of
> > > > > > Kostas, Timo and Aljoscha.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The proposed reasons for eliminating google doc are very
> > reasonable,
> > > > > > especially the access limitation for some people in China.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Besides that, another conservative option is to make google doc
> as
> > an
> > > > > > optional procedure, not a must procedure in practice, and
> > > > > > the ML discussion is still the formal must procedure to follow
> > > firstly.
> > > > > > And we can also kindly list these specific considerations/reasons
> > > > > > for google doc concerns as said below in the guideline doc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To do so, we still retain this option for some people who prefer
> to
> > > > > google
> > > > > > doc or willing to provide it in some corner cases.
> > > > > > Of course I am also happy to eliminate google doc completely.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Zhijiang
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > From:Kostas Kloudas <kk...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Send Time:2020 Feb. 18 (Tue.) 23:03
> > > > > > To:dev <de...@flink.apache.org>
> > > > > > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1 to what Aljoscha and Timo are proposing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would lean towards eliminating Google Docs altogether.
> > > > > > I think they served a purpose when discussions were among 3 to 4
> > > > > > people but with the current size of the community and the amount
> of
> > > > > > participants per discussion they become difficult to follow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Kostas
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Timo Walther <twalthr@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 to what Aljoscha said.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The past has shown that discussions in Google docs do not reach
> > all
> > > > > > > interested parties and the tracability of design decisions
> > becomes
> > > > > > > difficult. Google services are also partially inaccessible in
> > > certain
> > > > > > > parts of world.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We should actually do the opposite and not allow Google docs as
> > > FLIPs
> > > > > > > anymore. Commenting should be disabled by default.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Timo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 18.02.20 15:20, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > thanks for starting this discussion!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, I have a somewhat opposing opinion to this: we
> should
> > > > > disallow
> > > > > > > > using Google Docs for FLIPs and FLIP discussions and follow
> the
> > > > > already
> > > > > > > > established process more strictly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My reasons for this are:
> > > > > > > > - discussions on the Google Doc are not reflected in Apache
> > > > > > > > infrastructure
> > > > > > > > - discussions on Google Docs are non-linear and hard to
> > follow
> > > > > > > > - when discussions on Google Docs are resolved these
> > > discussions
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > not visible/re-readable anymore (I know there's history, but
> > meh)
> > > > > > > > - if discussion is kept purely to the ML this is easily
> > > > observable
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > any interested parties and it's there if somewhat want's to
> > > recheck
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > discussion in the future
> > > > > > > > - going from Google Doc to Wiki is an extra step that seems
> > > > > > > > unnecessary to me (but that's just personal opinion, I mean,
> I
> > > > don't
> > > > > > > > have to do the extra work here...)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Aljoscha
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 18.02.20 09:02, Hequn Cheng wrote:
> > > > > > > >> Hi everyone,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Currently, when we create a FLIP we follow the FLIP process
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > Flink
> > > > > > > >> Improvement Proposals wiki[1]. The process mainly includes
> the
> > > > > > following
> > > > > > > >> steps:
> > > > > > > >> 1. Create a FLIP wiki page.
> > > > > > > >> 2. Raise the discussion on the mailing list.
> > > > > > > >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the
> > > > proposal
> > > > > > > >> adopted.
> > > > > > > >> There is also a discussion[2] on the FLIP process which may
> be
> > > > > helpful
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> you.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> As it is not allowed commented on the wiki, we usually have
> a
> > > > google
> > > > > > doc
> > > > > > > >> for the discussion at step 2 and whenever there is a change
> we
> > > > need
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> pick
> > > > > > > >> it to the wiki page. This makes things somehow redundant. To
> > > solve
> > > > > > > >> this, we
> > > > > > > >> can rearrange the step a little bit and avoid the pick:
> > > > > > > >> 1. Raise the discussion on the mailing list. The subject of
> > the
> > > > > > thread is
> > > > > > > >> of the format [DISCUSS][FLIP] {your FLIP heading}. Also, the
> > > > design
> > > > > > doc
> > > > > > > >> should follow the FLIP-Template strictly. (The [FLIP] tag is
> > > used
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> inform
> > > > > > > >> people that it is a FLIP discussion and more attention
> should
> > be
> > > > > > paid.)
> > > > > > > >> 2. Create a FLIP wiki page once we reached an agreement on
> the
> > > > > > > >> discussion.
> > > > > > > >> We can simply copy the google doc into the FLIP wiki page.
> > > > > > > >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the
> > > > proposal
> > > > > > > >> adopted. It should be noted that we should always vote on a
> > FLIP
> > > > > wiki
> > > > > > > >> page
> > > > > > > >> instead of a google doc. The wiki page is the final version
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > google
> > > > > > > >> doc.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> This can bring some benefits:
> > > > > > > >> 1. Make the discussion more effective as we force people to
> > > write
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> discuss on a google doc that follows the FLIP template which
> > > > > > > >> includes necessary information such as Motivation,
> Interfaces,
> > > > > > Proposed
> > > > > > > >> changes, etc.
> > > > > > > >> 2. Avoid redundant pick from google doc to Flink wiki page.
> > Once
> > > > we
> > > > > > > >> reached
> > > > > > > >> an agreement on the discussion, we can simply copy the
> google
> > > doc
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> FLIP wiki page.
> > > > > > > >> 3. As adopted FLIP should mostly be "immutable", we can even
> > > make
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> wiki
> > > > > > > >> page PMC or committer editable since it just needs a simple
> > copy
> > > > > from
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> google doc.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Looking forward to your feedback!
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > > >> Hequn
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> [2]
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-META-FLIP-Sticking-or-not-to-a-strict-FLIP-voting-process-td29978.html#a29988
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best, Jingsong Lee
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
Posted by Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>.
+1 for Aljoscha's proposal.
This, of course, does not mean that one cannot use Google docs in order to
prepare the FLIP discussion.
Cheers,
Till
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:15 AM Xintong Song <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm also not a fun of discussing FLIPs with google docs.
>
> I think google docs is probably ok for smaller scope early discussions
> before raising the discussion on the mailing list, when the draft is not
> completed and is expected to change frequently. Once it is proposed to the
> community, as many people already mentioned, google doc changes are very
> hard to track.
>
> If I understand correctly, what Jincheng suggested is to use google doc but
> not allowing discussions and modifications on it, except for minor issues.
> Regarding that, my concerns are:
> - How do we define "minor issues"? Are these typo and grammar issues only?
> - If so, I think it is the proposer's responsibility to provide
> well-written docs with less such mistakes, if not none. Most editors
> provide helpful spelling and grammar checks.
> - If not, then people may have different opinions on whether a comment is
> minor or not.
>
> Another advantage for the wiki page is that, once you watch it you can
> always get email notifications on modifications to that page. AFAIK, for
> google doc you get notifications only if someone replies your comments,
> unless you're the owner of the doc.
>
> Thank you~
>
> Xintong Song
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:57 PM jincheng sun <su...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Thanks for bring up the discussion @Hequn!
> >
> > I agree with some concerns raised above, however, I would like to give my
> > +1 for the proposal and I would like to share my thoughts:
> >
> > If I understand correctly, the proposal doesn’t encourage people to
> discuss
> > in the google doc, the first step of the proposal is to raise the
> > discussion on the mailing list.
> >
> > It’s common sense to discuss on the mailing list even with a google doc.
> > This is also the current status and works well. Most people know that we
> > should focus the discussion on the mailing list especially for those
> about
> > architecture or something pretty important for discussing which is what
> we
> > want to left the history.
> >
> > I believe the google doc brings more benefits for us than costs. The
> > problem is how we use it, not eliminate it. There are still some benefits
> > that we can get from it. For example, It is a good place to comment on
> the
> > document for some minor problems, e.g., typos or grammatical problems.
> > Correcting these problems could help us to achieve a high-quality
> document.
> > It is also unnecessarily to left history for these kinds of problems. If
> we
> > put all these comments into the mailing list. The mailing list would be
> > flooded. Meanwhile, it’s hard to comment on these problems on the mailing
> > list if the document is very long.
> >
> > As for the FLIP process, it’s a good idea to make our wiki “immutable” so
> > that we can make the wiki management better, i.e., only editable by PMC
> or
> > committer(This can be discussed in another thread).
> >
> > What do you think? Would be great if more people can share thoughts here!
> >
> > Best,
> > Jincheng
> >
> >
> > Yuan Mei <yu...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月19日周三 下午12:41写道：
> >
> > > It is difficult to draw a clear cut between small and big issues.
> Hence I
> > > would prefer to stick to only one way for discussion.
> > >
> > > I would try to avoid Google Docs if having other ways mainly because of
> > two
> > > reasons:
> > >
> > > 1. Google Docs are not always accessible to everyone.
> > >
> > > 2. Discussion on Google docs is difficult to track
> > > - new comments are notified through email
> > > - discussion history is hard to follow once a comment is resolved
> > > - limited spaces on the page to display e.t.c
> > >
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > Yuan
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:52 AM Jingsong Li <ji...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all, thanks for launching this discussion.
> > > >
> > > > About eliminating Google Docs. I agree with Zhijiang, I share my
> > concern
> > > > about it.
> > > >
> > > > If the FLIP Driver is a Flink newer or the FLIP is very big and
> > > > complicated. His/Her design maybe need change many many things, in
> this
> > > > situation, Google doc is good to be reviewed by community. If all
> > > > discussions are in ML, It's going to be very messy.
> > > >
> > > > So I think can keep this principle:
> > > > - Small issues can be discussed on Google doc.
> > > > - Big issues, or fundamental design issues, or API issues, are
> > discussed
> > > in
> > > > ML.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Jingsong Lee
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:22 AM Zhijiang <wangzhijiang999@aliyun.com
> > > > .invalid>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for launching this discussion and also agree with the
> opinions
> > > of
> > > > > Kostas, Timo and Aljoscha.
> > > > >
> > > > > The proposed reasons for eliminating google doc are very
> reasonable,
> > > > > especially the access limitation for some people in China.
> > > > >
> > > > > Besides that, another conservative option is to make google doc as
> an
> > > > > optional procedure, not a must procedure in practice, and
> > > > > the ML discussion is still the formal must procedure to follow
> > firstly.
> > > > > And we can also kindly list these specific considerations/reasons
> > > > > for google doc concerns as said below in the guideline doc.
> > > > >
> > > > > To do so, we still retain this option for some people who prefer to
> > > > google
> > > > > doc or willing to provide it in some corner cases.
> > > > > Of course I am also happy to eliminate google doc completely.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Zhijiang
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > From:Kostas Kloudas <kk...@gmail.com>
> > > > > Send Time:2020 Feb. 18 (Tue.) 23:03
> > > > > To:dev <de...@flink.apache.org>
> > > > > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 to what Aljoscha and Timo are proposing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would lean towards eliminating Google Docs altogether.
> > > > > I think they served a purpose when discussions were among 3 to 4
> > > > > people but with the current size of the community and the amount of
> > > > > participants per discussion they become difficult to follow.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Kostas
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1 to what Aljoscha said.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The past has shown that discussions in Google docs do not reach
> all
> > > > > > interested parties and the tracability of design decisions
> becomes
> > > > > > difficult. Google services are also partially inaccessible in
> > certain
> > > > > > parts of world.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We should actually do the opposite and not allow Google docs as
> > FLIPs
> > > > > > anymore. Commenting should be disabled by default.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Timo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 18.02.20 15:20, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > thanks for starting this discussion!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, I have a somewhat opposing opinion to this: we should
> > > > disallow
> > > > > > > using Google Docs for FLIPs and FLIP discussions and follow the
> > > > already
> > > > > > > established process more strictly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My reasons for this are:
> > > > > > > - discussions on the Google Doc are not reflected in Apache
> > > > > > > infrastructure
> > > > > > > - discussions on Google Docs are non-linear and hard to
> follow
> > > > > > > - when discussions on Google Docs are resolved these
> > discussions
> > > > are
> > > > > > > not visible/re-readable anymore (I know there's history, but
> meh)
> > > > > > > - if discussion is kept purely to the ML this is easily
> > > observable
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > any interested parties and it's there if somewhat want's to
> > recheck
> > > > the
> > > > > > > discussion in the future
> > > > > > > - going from Google Doc to Wiki is an extra step that seems
> > > > > > > unnecessary to me (but that's just personal opinion, I mean, I
> > > don't
> > > > > > > have to do the extra work here...)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Aljoscha
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 18.02.20 09:02, Hequn Cheng wrote:
> > > > > > >> Hi everyone,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Currently, when we create a FLIP we follow the FLIP process in
> > the
> > > > > Flink
> > > > > > >> Improvement Proposals wiki[1]. The process mainly includes the
> > > > > following
> > > > > > >> steps:
> > > > > > >> 1. Create a FLIP wiki page.
> > > > > > >> 2. Raise the discussion on the mailing list.
> > > > > > >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the
> > > proposal
> > > > > > >> adopted.
> > > > > > >> There is also a discussion[2] on the FLIP process which may be
> > > > helpful
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> you.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> As it is not allowed commented on the wiki, we usually have a
> > > google
> > > > > doc
> > > > > > >> for the discussion at step 2 and whenever there is a change we
> > > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> pick
> > > > > > >> it to the wiki page. This makes things somehow redundant. To
> > solve
> > > > > > >> this, we
> > > > > > >> can rearrange the step a little bit and avoid the pick:
> > > > > > >> 1. Raise the discussion on the mailing list. The subject of
> the
> > > > > thread is
> > > > > > >> of the format [DISCUSS][FLIP] {your FLIP heading}. Also, the
> > > design
> > > > > doc
> > > > > > >> should follow the FLIP-Template strictly. (The [FLIP] tag is
> > used
> > > to
> > > > > > >> inform
> > > > > > >> people that it is a FLIP discussion and more attention should
> be
> > > > > paid.)
> > > > > > >> 2. Create a FLIP wiki page once we reached an agreement on the
> > > > > > >> discussion.
> > > > > > >> We can simply copy the google doc into the FLIP wiki page.
> > > > > > >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the
> > > proposal
> > > > > > >> adopted. It should be noted that we should always vote on a
> FLIP
> > > > wiki
> > > > > > >> page
> > > > > > >> instead of a google doc. The wiki page is the final version of
> > the
> > > > > google
> > > > > > >> doc.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> This can bring some benefits:
> > > > > > >> 1. Make the discussion more effective as we force people to
> > write
> > > > and
> > > > > > >> discuss on a google doc that follows the FLIP template which
> > > > > > >> includes necessary information such as Motivation, Interfaces,
> > > > > Proposed
> > > > > > >> changes, etc.
> > > > > > >> 2. Avoid redundant pick from google doc to Flink wiki page.
> Once
> > > we
> > > > > > >> reached
> > > > > > >> an agreement on the discussion, we can simply copy the google
> > doc
> > > > into
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> FLIP wiki page.
> > > > > > >> 3. As adopted FLIP should mostly be "immutable", we can even
> > make
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> wiki
> > > > > > >> page PMC or committer editable since it just needs a simple
> copy
> > > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> google doc.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Looking forward to your feedback!
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > >> Hequn
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> [2]
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-META-FLIP-Sticking-or-not-to-a-strict-FLIP-voting-process-td29978.html#a29988
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best, Jingsong Lee
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
Posted by Xintong Song <to...@gmail.com>.
I'm also not a fun of discussing FLIPs with google docs.
I think google docs is probably ok for smaller scope early discussions
before raising the discussion on the mailing list, when the draft is not
completed and is expected to change frequently. Once it is proposed to the
community, as many people already mentioned, google doc changes are very
hard to track.
If I understand correctly, what Jincheng suggested is to use google doc but
not allowing discussions and modifications on it, except for minor issues.
Regarding that, my concerns are:
- How do we define "minor issues"? Are these typo and grammar issues only?
- If so, I think it is the proposer's responsibility to provide
well-written docs with less such mistakes, if not none. Most editors
provide helpful spelling and grammar checks.
- If not, then people may have different opinions on whether a comment is
minor or not.
Another advantage for the wiki page is that, once you watch it you can
always get email notifications on modifications to that page. AFAIK, for
google doc you get notifications only if someone replies your comments,
unless you're the owner of the doc.
Thank you~
Xintong Song
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:57 PM jincheng sun <su...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for bring up the discussion @Hequn!
>
> I agree with some concerns raised above, however, I would like to give my
> +1 for the proposal and I would like to share my thoughts:
>
> If I understand correctly, the proposal doesn’t encourage people to discuss
> in the google doc, the first step of the proposal is to raise the
> discussion on the mailing list.
>
> It’s common sense to discuss on the mailing list even with a google doc.
> This is also the current status and works well. Most people know that we
> should focus the discussion on the mailing list especially for those about
> architecture or something pretty important for discussing which is what we
> want to left the history.
>
> I believe the google doc brings more benefits for us than costs. The
> problem is how we use it, not eliminate it. There are still some benefits
> that we can get from it. For example, It is a good place to comment on the
> document for some minor problems, e.g., typos or grammatical problems.
> Correcting these problems could help us to achieve a high-quality document.
> It is also unnecessarily to left history for these kinds of problems. If we
> put all these comments into the mailing list. The mailing list would be
> flooded. Meanwhile, it’s hard to comment on these problems on the mailing
> list if the document is very long.
>
> As for the FLIP process, it’s a good idea to make our wiki “immutable” so
> that we can make the wiki management better, i.e., only editable by PMC or
> committer(This can be discussed in another thread).
>
> What do you think? Would be great if more people can share thoughts here!
>
> Best,
> Jincheng
>
>
> Yuan Mei <yu...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月19日周三 下午12:41写道：
>
> > It is difficult to draw a clear cut between small and big issues. Hence I
> > would prefer to stick to only one way for discussion.
> >
> > I would try to avoid Google Docs if having other ways mainly because of
> two
> > reasons:
> >
> > 1. Google Docs are not always accessible to everyone.
> >
> > 2. Discussion on Google docs is difficult to track
> > - new comments are notified through email
> > - discussion history is hard to follow once a comment is resolved
> > - limited spaces on the page to display e.t.c
> >
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Yuan
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:52 AM Jingsong Li <ji...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all, thanks for launching this discussion.
> > >
> > > About eliminating Google Docs. I agree with Zhijiang, I share my
> concern
> > > about it.
> > >
> > > If the FLIP Driver is a Flink newer or the FLIP is very big and
> > > complicated. His/Her design maybe need change many many things, in this
> > > situation, Google doc is good to be reviewed by community. If all
> > > discussions are in ML, It's going to be very messy.
> > >
> > > So I think can keep this principle:
> > > - Small issues can be discussed on Google doc.
> > > - Big issues, or fundamental design issues, or API issues, are
> discussed
> > in
> > > ML.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Jingsong Lee
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:22 AM Zhijiang <wangzhijiang999@aliyun.com
> > > .invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for launching this discussion and also agree with the opinions
> > of
> > > > Kostas, Timo and Aljoscha.
> > > >
> > > > The proposed reasons for eliminating google doc are very reasonable,
> > > > especially the access limitation for some people in China.
> > > >
> > > > Besides that, another conservative option is to make google doc as an
> > > > optional procedure, not a must procedure in practice, and
> > > > the ML discussion is still the formal must procedure to follow
> firstly.
> > > > And we can also kindly list these specific considerations/reasons
> > > > for google doc concerns as said below in the guideline doc.
> > > >
> > > > To do so, we still retain this option for some people who prefer to
> > > google
> > > > doc or willing to provide it in some corner cases.
> > > > Of course I am also happy to eliminate google doc completely.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Zhijiang
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > From:Kostas Kloudas <kk...@gmail.com>
> > > > Send Time:2020 Feb. 18 (Tue.) 23:03
> > > > To:dev <de...@flink.apache.org>
> > > > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
> > > >
> > > > +1 to what Aljoscha and Timo are proposing.
> > > >
> > > > I would lean towards eliminating Google Docs altogether.
> > > > I think they served a purpose when discussions were among 3 to 4
> > > > people but with the current size of the community and the amount of
> > > > participants per discussion they become difficult to follow.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Kostas
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 to what Aljoscha said.
> > > > >
> > > > > The past has shown that discussions in Google docs do not reach all
> > > > > interested parties and the tracability of design decisions becomes
> > > > > difficult. Google services are also partially inaccessible in
> certain
> > > > > parts of world.
> > > > >
> > > > > We should actually do the opposite and not allow Google docs as
> FLIPs
> > > > > anymore. Commenting should be disabled by default.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Timo
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 18.02.20 15:20, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks for starting this discussion!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, I have a somewhat opposing opinion to this: we should
> > > disallow
> > > > > > using Google Docs for FLIPs and FLIP discussions and follow the
> > > already
> > > > > > established process more strictly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My reasons for this are:
> > > > > > - discussions on the Google Doc are not reflected in Apache
> > > > > > infrastructure
> > > > > > - discussions on Google Docs are non-linear and hard to follow
> > > > > > - when discussions on Google Docs are resolved these
> discussions
> > > are
> > > > > > not visible/re-readable anymore (I know there's history, but meh)
> > > > > > - if discussion is kept purely to the ML this is easily
> > observable
> > > > for
> > > > > > any interested parties and it's there if somewhat want's to
> recheck
> > > the
> > > > > > discussion in the future
> > > > > > - going from Google Doc to Wiki is an extra step that seems
> > > > > > unnecessary to me (but that's just personal opinion, I mean, I
> > don't
> > > > > > have to do the extra work here...)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Aljoscha
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 18.02.20 09:02, Hequn Cheng wrote:
> > > > > >> Hi everyone,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Currently, when we create a FLIP we follow the FLIP process in
> the
> > > > Flink
> > > > > >> Improvement Proposals wiki[1]. The process mainly includes the
> > > > following
> > > > > >> steps:
> > > > > >> 1. Create a FLIP wiki page.
> > > > > >> 2. Raise the discussion on the mailing list.
> > > > > >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the
> > proposal
> > > > > >> adopted.
> > > > > >> There is also a discussion[2] on the FLIP process which may be
> > > helpful
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> you.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> As it is not allowed commented on the wiki, we usually have a
> > google
> > > > doc
> > > > > >> for the discussion at step 2 and whenever there is a change we
> > need
> > > to
> > > > > >> pick
> > > > > >> it to the wiki page. This makes things somehow redundant. To
> solve
> > > > > >> this, we
> > > > > >> can rearrange the step a little bit and avoid the pick:
> > > > > >> 1. Raise the discussion on the mailing list. The subject of the
> > > > thread is
> > > > > >> of the format [DISCUSS][FLIP] {your FLIP heading}. Also, the
> > design
> > > > doc
> > > > > >> should follow the FLIP-Template strictly. (The [FLIP] tag is
> used
> > to
> > > > > >> inform
> > > > > >> people that it is a FLIP discussion and more attention should be
> > > > paid.)
> > > > > >> 2. Create a FLIP wiki page once we reached an agreement on the
> > > > > >> discussion.
> > > > > >> We can simply copy the google doc into the FLIP wiki page.
> > > > > >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the
> > proposal
> > > > > >> adopted. It should be noted that we should always vote on a FLIP
> > > wiki
> > > > > >> page
> > > > > >> instead of a google doc. The wiki page is the final version of
> the
> > > > google
> > > > > >> doc.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> This can bring some benefits:
> > > > > >> 1. Make the discussion more effective as we force people to
> write
> > > and
> > > > > >> discuss on a google doc that follows the FLIP template which
> > > > > >> includes necessary information such as Motivation, Interfaces,
> > > > Proposed
> > > > > >> changes, etc.
> > > > > >> 2. Avoid redundant pick from google doc to Flink wiki page. Once
> > we
> > > > > >> reached
> > > > > >> an agreement on the discussion, we can simply copy the google
> doc
> > > into
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> FLIP wiki page.
> > > > > >> 3. As adopted FLIP should mostly be "immutable", we can even
> make
> > > the
> > > > > >> wiki
> > > > > >> page PMC or committer editable since it just needs a simple copy
> > > from
> > > > the
> > > > > >> google doc.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Looking forward to your feedback!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > >> Hequn
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [2]
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-META-FLIP-Sticking-or-not-to-a-strict-FLIP-voting-process-td29978.html#a29988
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best, Jingsong Lee
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
Posted by jincheng sun <su...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
Thanks for bring up the discussion @Hequn!
I agree with some concerns raised above, however, I would like to give my
+1 for the proposal and I would like to share my thoughts:
If I understand correctly, the proposal doesn’t encourage people to discuss
in the google doc, the first step of the proposal is to raise the
discussion on the mailing list.
It’s common sense to discuss on the mailing list even with a google doc.
This is also the current status and works well. Most people know that we
should focus the discussion on the mailing list especially for those about
architecture or something pretty important for discussing which is what we
want to left the history.
I believe the google doc brings more benefits for us than costs. The
problem is how we use it, not eliminate it. There are still some benefits
that we can get from it. For example, It is a good place to comment on the
document for some minor problems, e.g., typos or grammatical problems.
Correcting these problems could help us to achieve a high-quality document.
It is also unnecessarily to left history for these kinds of problems. If we
put all these comments into the mailing list. The mailing list would be
flooded. Meanwhile, it’s hard to comment on these problems on the mailing
list if the document is very long.
As for the FLIP process, it’s a good idea to make our wiki “immutable” so
that we can make the wiki management better, i.e., only editable by PMC or
committer(This can be discussed in another thread).
What do you think? Would be great if more people can share thoughts here!
Best,
Jincheng
Yuan Mei <yu...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月19日周三 下午12:41写道：
> It is difficult to draw a clear cut between small and big issues. Hence I
> would prefer to stick to only one way for discussion.
>
> I would try to avoid Google Docs if having other ways mainly because of two
> reasons:
>
> 1. Google Docs are not always accessible to everyone.
>
> 2. Discussion on Google docs is difficult to track
> - new comments are notified through email
> - discussion history is hard to follow once a comment is resolved
> - limited spaces on the page to display e.t.c
>
>
> Best
>
> Yuan
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:52 AM Jingsong Li <ji...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all, thanks for launching this discussion.
> >
> > About eliminating Google Docs. I agree with Zhijiang, I share my concern
> > about it.
> >
> > If the FLIP Driver is a Flink newer or the FLIP is very big and
> > complicated. His/Her design maybe need change many many things, in this
> > situation, Google doc is good to be reviewed by community. If all
> > discussions are in ML, It's going to be very messy.
> >
> > So I think can keep this principle:
> > - Small issues can be discussed on Google doc.
> > - Big issues, or fundamental design issues, or API issues, are discussed
> in
> > ML.
> >
> > Best,
> > Jingsong Lee
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:22 AM Zhijiang <wangzhijiang999@aliyun.com
> > .invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for launching this discussion and also agree with the opinions
> of
> > > Kostas, Timo and Aljoscha.
> > >
> > > The proposed reasons for eliminating google doc are very reasonable,
> > > especially the access limitation for some people in China.
> > >
> > > Besides that, another conservative option is to make google doc as an
> > > optional procedure, not a must procedure in practice, and
> > > the ML discussion is still the formal must procedure to follow firstly.
> > > And we can also kindly list these specific considerations/reasons
> > > for google doc concerns as said below in the guideline doc.
> > >
> > > To do so, we still retain this option for some people who prefer to
> > google
> > > doc or willing to provide it in some corner cases.
> > > Of course I am also happy to eliminate google doc completely.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Zhijiang
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > From:Kostas Kloudas <kk...@gmail.com>
> > > Send Time:2020 Feb. 18 (Tue.) 23:03
> > > To:dev <de...@flink.apache.org>
> > > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
> > >
> > > +1 to what Aljoscha and Timo are proposing.
> > >
> > > I would lean towards eliminating Google Docs altogether.
> > > I think they served a purpose when discussions were among 3 to 4
> > > people but with the current size of the community and the amount of
> > > participants per discussion they become difficult to follow.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Kostas
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1 to what Aljoscha said.
> > > >
> > > > The past has shown that discussions in Google docs do not reach all
> > > > interested parties and the tracability of design decisions becomes
> > > > difficult. Google services are also partially inaccessible in certain
> > > > parts of world.
> > > >
> > > > We should actually do the opposite and not allow Google docs as FLIPs
> > > > anymore. Commenting should be disabled by default.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Timo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 18.02.20 15:20, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks for starting this discussion!
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I have a somewhat opposing opinion to this: we should
> > disallow
> > > > > using Google Docs for FLIPs and FLIP discussions and follow the
> > already
> > > > > established process more strictly.
> > > > >
> > > > > My reasons for this are:
> > > > > - discussions on the Google Doc are not reflected in Apache
> > > > > infrastructure
> > > > > - discussions on Google Docs are non-linear and hard to follow
> > > > > - when discussions on Google Docs are resolved these discussions
> > are
> > > > > not visible/re-readable anymore (I know there's history, but meh)
> > > > > - if discussion is kept purely to the ML this is easily
> observable
> > > for
> > > > > any interested parties and it's there if somewhat want's to recheck
> > the
> > > > > discussion in the future
> > > > > - going from Google Doc to Wiki is an extra step that seems
> > > > > unnecessary to me (but that's just personal opinion, I mean, I
> don't
> > > > > have to do the extra work here...)
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Aljoscha
> > > > >
> > > > > On 18.02.20 09:02, Hequn Cheng wrote:
> > > > >> Hi everyone,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Currently, when we create a FLIP we follow the FLIP process in the
> > > Flink
> > > > >> Improvement Proposals wiki[1]. The process mainly includes the
> > > following
> > > > >> steps:
> > > > >> 1. Create a FLIP wiki page.
> > > > >> 2. Raise the discussion on the mailing list.
> > > > >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the
> proposal
> > > > >> adopted.
> > > > >> There is also a discussion[2] on the FLIP process which may be
> > helpful
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> you.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As it is not allowed commented on the wiki, we usually have a
> google
> > > doc
> > > > >> for the discussion at step 2 and whenever there is a change we
> need
> > to
> > > > >> pick
> > > > >> it to the wiki page. This makes things somehow redundant. To solve
> > > > >> this, we
> > > > >> can rearrange the step a little bit and avoid the pick:
> > > > >> 1. Raise the discussion on the mailing list. The subject of the
> > > thread is
> > > > >> of the format [DISCUSS][FLIP] {your FLIP heading}. Also, the
> design
> > > doc
> > > > >> should follow the FLIP-Template strictly. (The [FLIP] tag is used
> to
> > > > >> inform
> > > > >> people that it is a FLIP discussion and more attention should be
> > > paid.)
> > > > >> 2. Create a FLIP wiki page once we reached an agreement on the
> > > > >> discussion.
> > > > >> We can simply copy the google doc into the FLIP wiki page.
> > > > >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the
> proposal
> > > > >> adopted. It should be noted that we should always vote on a FLIP
> > wiki
> > > > >> page
> > > > >> instead of a google doc. The wiki page is the final version of the
> > > google
> > > > >> doc.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This can bring some benefits:
> > > > >> 1. Make the discussion more effective as we force people to write
> > and
> > > > >> discuss on a google doc that follows the FLIP template which
> > > > >> includes necessary information such as Motivation, Interfaces,
> > > Proposed
> > > > >> changes, etc.
> > > > >> 2. Avoid redundant pick from google doc to Flink wiki page. Once
> we
> > > > >> reached
> > > > >> an agreement on the discussion, we can simply copy the google doc
> > into
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> FLIP wiki page.
> > > > >> 3. As adopted FLIP should mostly be "immutable", we can even make
> > the
> > > > >> wiki
> > > > >> page PMC or committer editable since it just needs a simple copy
> > from
> > > the
> > > > >> google doc.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Looking forward to your feedback!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Best,
> > > > >> Hequn
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [2]
> > > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-META-FLIP-Sticking-or-not-to-a-strict-FLIP-voting-process-td29978.html#a29988
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Best, Jingsong Lee
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
Posted by Yuan Mei <yu...@gmail.com>.
It is difficult to draw a clear cut between small and big issues. Hence I
would prefer to stick to only one way for discussion.
I would try to avoid Google Docs if having other ways mainly because of two
reasons:
1. Google Docs are not always accessible to everyone.
2. Discussion on Google docs is difficult to track
- new comments are notified through email
- discussion history is hard to follow once a comment is resolved
- limited spaces on the page to display e.t.c
Best
Yuan
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:52 AM Jingsong Li <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all, thanks for launching this discussion.
>
> About eliminating Google Docs. I agree with Zhijiang, I share my concern
> about it.
>
> If the FLIP Driver is a Flink newer or the FLIP is very big and
> complicated. His/Her design maybe need change many many things, in this
> situation, Google doc is good to be reviewed by community. If all
> discussions are in ML, It's going to be very messy.
>
> So I think can keep this principle:
> - Small issues can be discussed on Google doc.
> - Big issues, or fundamental design issues, or API issues, are discussed in
> ML.
>
> Best,
> Jingsong Lee
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:22 AM Zhijiang <wangzhijiang999@aliyun.com
> .invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for launching this discussion and also agree with the opinions of
> > Kostas, Timo and Aljoscha.
> >
> > The proposed reasons for eliminating google doc are very reasonable,
> > especially the access limitation for some people in China.
> >
> > Besides that, another conservative option is to make google doc as an
> > optional procedure, not a must procedure in practice, and
> > the ML discussion is still the formal must procedure to follow firstly.
> > And we can also kindly list these specific considerations/reasons
> > for google doc concerns as said below in the guideline doc.
> >
> > To do so, we still retain this option for some people who prefer to
> google
> > doc or willing to provide it in some corner cases.
> > Of course I am also happy to eliminate google doc completely.
> >
> > Best,
> > Zhijiang
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From:Kostas Kloudas <kk...@gmail.com>
> > Send Time:2020 Feb. 18 (Tue.) 23:03
> > To:dev <de...@flink.apache.org>
> > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
> >
> > +1 to what Aljoscha and Timo are proposing.
> >
> > I would lean towards eliminating Google Docs altogether.
> > I think they served a purpose when discussions were among 3 to 4
> > people but with the current size of the community and the amount of
> > participants per discussion they become difficult to follow.
> >
> > Best,
> > Kostas
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 to what Aljoscha said.
> > >
> > > The past has shown that discussions in Google docs do not reach all
> > > interested parties and the tracability of design decisions becomes
> > > difficult. Google services are also partially inaccessible in certain
> > > parts of world.
> > >
> > > We should actually do the opposite and not allow Google docs as FLIPs
> > > anymore. Commenting should be disabled by default.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Timo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 18.02.20 15:20, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for starting this discussion!
> > > >
> > > > However, I have a somewhat opposing opinion to this: we should
> disallow
> > > > using Google Docs for FLIPs and FLIP discussions and follow the
> already
> > > > established process more strictly.
> > > >
> > > > My reasons for this are:
> > > > - discussions on the Google Doc are not reflected in Apache
> > > > infrastructure
> > > > - discussions on Google Docs are non-linear and hard to follow
> > > > - when discussions on Google Docs are resolved these discussions
> are
> > > > not visible/re-readable anymore (I know there's history, but meh)
> > > > - if discussion is kept purely to the ML this is easily observable
> > for
> > > > any interested parties and it's there if somewhat want's to recheck
> the
> > > > discussion in the future
> > > > - going from Google Doc to Wiki is an extra step that seems
> > > > unnecessary to me (but that's just personal opinion, I mean, I don't
> > > > have to do the extra work here...)
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Aljoscha
> > > >
> > > > On 18.02.20 09:02, Hequn Cheng wrote:
> > > >> Hi everyone,
> > > >>
> > > >> Currently, when we create a FLIP we follow the FLIP process in the
> > Flink
> > > >> Improvement Proposals wiki[1]. The process mainly includes the
> > following
> > > >> steps:
> > > >> 1. Create a FLIP wiki page.
> > > >> 2. Raise the discussion on the mailing list.
> > > >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal
> > > >> adopted.
> > > >> There is also a discussion[2] on the FLIP process which may be
> helpful
> > > >> for
> > > >> you.
> > > >>
> > > >> As it is not allowed commented on the wiki, we usually have a google
> > doc
> > > >> for the discussion at step 2 and whenever there is a change we need
> to
> > > >> pick
> > > >> it to the wiki page. This makes things somehow redundant. To solve
> > > >> this, we
> > > >> can rearrange the step a little bit and avoid the pick:
> > > >> 1. Raise the discussion on the mailing list. The subject of the
> > thread is
> > > >> of the format [DISCUSS][FLIP] {your FLIP heading}. Also, the design
> > doc
> > > >> should follow the FLIP-Template strictly. (The [FLIP] tag is used to
> > > >> inform
> > > >> people that it is a FLIP discussion and more attention should be
> > paid.)
> > > >> 2. Create a FLIP wiki page once we reached an agreement on the
> > > >> discussion.
> > > >> We can simply copy the google doc into the FLIP wiki page.
> > > >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal
> > > >> adopted. It should be noted that we should always vote on a FLIP
> wiki
> > > >> page
> > > >> instead of a google doc. The wiki page is the final version of the
> > google
> > > >> doc.
> > > >>
> > > >> This can bring some benefits:
> > > >> 1. Make the discussion more effective as we force people to write
> and
> > > >> discuss on a google doc that follows the FLIP template which
> > > >> includes necessary information such as Motivation, Interfaces,
> > Proposed
> > > >> changes, etc.
> > > >> 2. Avoid redundant pick from google doc to Flink wiki page. Once we
> > > >> reached
> > > >> an agreement on the discussion, we can simply copy the google doc
> into
> > > >> the
> > > >> FLIP wiki page.
> > > >> 3. As adopted FLIP should mostly be "immutable", we can even make
> the
> > > >> wiki
> > > >> page PMC or committer editable since it just needs a simple copy
> from
> > the
> > > >> google doc.
> > > >>
> > > >> Looking forward to your feedback!
> > > >>
> > > >> Best,
> > > >> Hequn
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals
> > > >>
> > > >> [2]
> > > >>
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-META-FLIP-Sticking-or-not-to-a-strict-FLIP-voting-process-td29978.html#a29988
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Best, Jingsong Lee
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
Posted by Jingsong Li <ji...@gmail.com>.
Hi all, thanks for launching this discussion.
About eliminating Google Docs. I agree with Zhijiang, I share my concern
about it.
If the FLIP Driver is a Flink newer or the FLIP is very big and
complicated. His/Her design maybe need change many many things, in this
situation, Google doc is good to be reviewed by community. If all
discussions are in ML, It's going to be very messy.
So I think can keep this principle:
- Small issues can be discussed on Google doc.
- Big issues, or fundamental design issues, or API issues, are discussed in
ML.
Best,
Jingsong Lee
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:22 AM Zhijiang <wa...@aliyun.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Thanks for launching this discussion and also agree with the opinions of
> Kostas, Timo and Aljoscha.
>
> The proposed reasons for eliminating google doc are very reasonable,
> especially the access limitation for some people in China.
>
> Besides that, another conservative option is to make google doc as an
> optional procedure, not a must procedure in practice, and
> the ML discussion is still the formal must procedure to follow firstly.
> And we can also kindly list these specific considerations/reasons
> for google doc concerns as said below in the guideline doc.
>
> To do so, we still retain this option for some people who prefer to google
> doc or willing to provide it in some corner cases.
> Of course I am also happy to eliminate google doc completely.
>
> Best,
> Zhijiang
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> From:Kostas Kloudas <kk...@gmail.com>
> Send Time:2020 Feb. 18 (Tue.) 23:03
> To:dev <de...@flink.apache.org>
> Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
>
> +1 to what Aljoscha and Timo are proposing.
>
> I would lean towards eliminating Google Docs altogether.
> I think they served a purpose when discussions were among 3 to 4
> people but with the current size of the community and the amount of
> participants per discussion they become difficult to follow.
>
> Best,
> Kostas
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > +1 to what Aljoscha said.
> >
> > The past has shown that discussions in Google docs do not reach all
> > interested parties and the tracability of design decisions becomes
> > difficult. Google services are also partially inaccessible in certain
> > parts of world.
> >
> > We should actually do the opposite and not allow Google docs as FLIPs
> > anymore. Commenting should be disabled by default.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Timo
> >
> >
> >
> > On 18.02.20 15:20, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > thanks for starting this discussion!
> > >
> > > However, I have a somewhat opposing opinion to this: we should disallow
> > > using Google Docs for FLIPs and FLIP discussions and follow the already
> > > established process more strictly.
> > >
> > > My reasons for this are:
> > > - discussions on the Google Doc are not reflected in Apache
> > > infrastructure
> > > - discussions on Google Docs are non-linear and hard to follow
> > > - when discussions on Google Docs are resolved these discussions are
> > > not visible/re-readable anymore (I know there's history, but meh)
> > > - if discussion is kept purely to the ML this is easily observable
> for
> > > any interested parties and it's there if somewhat want's to recheck the
> > > discussion in the future
> > > - going from Google Doc to Wiki is an extra step that seems
> > > unnecessary to me (but that's just personal opinion, I mean, I don't
> > > have to do the extra work here...)
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Aljoscha
> > >
> > > On 18.02.20 09:02, Hequn Cheng wrote:
> > >> Hi everyone,
> > >>
> > >> Currently, when we create a FLIP we follow the FLIP process in the
> Flink
> > >> Improvement Proposals wiki[1]. The process mainly includes the
> following
> > >> steps:
> > >> 1. Create a FLIP wiki page.
> > >> 2. Raise the discussion on the mailing list.
> > >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal
> > >> adopted.
> > >> There is also a discussion[2] on the FLIP process which may be helpful
> > >> for
> > >> you.
> > >>
> > >> As it is not allowed commented on the wiki, we usually have a google
> doc
> > >> for the discussion at step 2 and whenever there is a change we need to
> > >> pick
> > >> it to the wiki page. This makes things somehow redundant. To solve
> > >> this, we
> > >> can rearrange the step a little bit and avoid the pick:
> > >> 1. Raise the discussion on the mailing list. The subject of the
> thread is
> > >> of the format [DISCUSS][FLIP] {your FLIP heading}. Also, the design
> doc
> > >> should follow the FLIP-Template strictly. (The [FLIP] tag is used to
> > >> inform
> > >> people that it is a FLIP discussion and more attention should be
> paid.)
> > >> 2. Create a FLIP wiki page once we reached an agreement on the
> > >> discussion.
> > >> We can simply copy the google doc into the FLIP wiki page.
> > >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal
> > >> adopted. It should be noted that we should always vote on a FLIP wiki
> > >> page
> > >> instead of a google doc. The wiki page is the final version of the
> google
> > >> doc.
> > >>
> > >> This can bring some benefits:
> > >> 1. Make the discussion more effective as we force people to write and
> > >> discuss on a google doc that follows the FLIP template which
> > >> includes necessary information such as Motivation, Interfaces,
> Proposed
> > >> changes, etc.
> > >> 2. Avoid redundant pick from google doc to Flink wiki page. Once we
> > >> reached
> > >> an agreement on the discussion, we can simply copy the google doc into
> > >> the
> > >> FLIP wiki page.
> > >> 3. As adopted FLIP should mostly be "immutable", we can even make the
> > >> wiki
> > >> page PMC or committer editable since it just needs a simple copy from
> the
> > >> google doc.
> > >>
> > >> Looking forward to your feedback!
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Hequn
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> > >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals
> > >>
> > >> [2]
> > >>
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-META-FLIP-Sticking-or-not-to-a-strict-FLIP-voting-process-td29978.html#a29988
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>
>
--
Best, Jingsong Lee
Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
Posted by Zhijiang <wa...@aliyun.com.INVALID>.
Thanks for launching this discussion and also agree with the opinions of Kostas, Timo and Aljoscha.
The proposed reasons for eliminating google doc are very reasonable, especially the access limitation for some people in China.
Besides that, another conservative option is to make google doc as an optional procedure, not a must procedure in practice, and
the ML discussion is still the formal must procedure to follow firstly. And we can also kindly list these specific considerations/reasons
for google doc concerns as said below in the guideline doc.
To do so, we still retain this option for some people who prefer to google doc or willing to provide it in some corner cases.
Of course I am also happy to eliminate google doc completely.
Best,
Zhijiang
------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Kostas Kloudas <kk...@gmail.com>
Send Time:2020 Feb. 18 (Tue.) 23:03
To:dev <de...@flink.apache.org>
Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
+1 to what Aljoscha and Timo are proposing.
I would lean towards eliminating Google Docs altogether.
I think they served a purpose when discussions were among 3 to 4
people but with the current size of the community and the amount of
participants per discussion they become difficult to follow.
Best,
Kostas
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 to what Aljoscha said.
>
> The past has shown that discussions in Google docs do not reach all
> interested parties and the tracability of design decisions becomes
> difficult. Google services are also partially inaccessible in certain
> parts of world.
>
> We should actually do the opposite and not allow Google docs as FLIPs
> anymore. Commenting should be disabled by default.
>
> Regards,
> Timo
>
>
>
> On 18.02.20 15:20, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > thanks for starting this discussion!
> >
> > However, I have a somewhat opposing opinion to this: we should disallow
> > using Google Docs for FLIPs and FLIP discussions and follow the already
> > established process more strictly.
> >
> > My reasons for this are:
> > - discussions on the Google Doc are not reflected in Apache
> > infrastructure
> > - discussions on Google Docs are non-linear and hard to follow
> > - when discussions on Google Docs are resolved these discussions are
> > not visible/re-readable anymore (I know there's history, but meh)
> > - if discussion is kept purely to the ML this is easily observable for
> > any interested parties and it's there if somewhat want's to recheck the
> > discussion in the future
> > - going from Google Doc to Wiki is an extra step that seems
> > unnecessary to me (but that's just personal opinion, I mean, I don't
> > have to do the extra work here...)
> >
> > Best,
> > Aljoscha
> >
> > On 18.02.20 09:02, Hequn Cheng wrote:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> Currently, when we create a FLIP we follow the FLIP process in the Flink
> >> Improvement Proposals wiki[1]. The process mainly includes the following
> >> steps:
> >> 1. Create a FLIP wiki page.
> >> 2. Raise the discussion on the mailing list.
> >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal
> >> adopted.
> >> There is also a discussion[2] on the FLIP process which may be helpful
> >> for
> >> you.
> >>
> >> As it is not allowed commented on the wiki, we usually have a google doc
> >> for the discussion at step 2 and whenever there is a change we need to
> >> pick
> >> it to the wiki page. This makes things somehow redundant. To solve
> >> this, we
> >> can rearrange the step a little bit and avoid the pick:
> >> 1. Raise the discussion on the mailing list. The subject of the thread is
> >> of the format [DISCUSS][FLIP] {your FLIP heading}. Also, the design doc
> >> should follow the FLIP-Template strictly. (The [FLIP] tag is used to
> >> inform
> >> people that it is a FLIP discussion and more attention should be paid.)
> >> 2. Create a FLIP wiki page once we reached an agreement on the
> >> discussion.
> >> We can simply copy the google doc into the FLIP wiki page.
> >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal
> >> adopted. It should be noted that we should always vote on a FLIP wiki
> >> page
> >> instead of a google doc. The wiki page is the final version of the google
> >> doc.
> >>
> >> This can bring some benefits:
> >> 1. Make the discussion more effective as we force people to write and
> >> discuss on a google doc that follows the FLIP template which
> >> includes necessary information such as Motivation, Interfaces, Proposed
> >> changes, etc.
> >> 2. Avoid redundant pick from google doc to Flink wiki page. Once we
> >> reached
> >> an agreement on the discussion, we can simply copy the google doc into
> >> the
> >> FLIP wiki page.
> >> 3. As adopted FLIP should mostly be "immutable", we can even make the
> >> wiki
> >> page PMC or committer editable since it just needs a simple copy from the
> >> google doc.
> >>
> >> Looking forward to your feedback!
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Hequn
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals
> >>
> >> [2]
> >> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-META-FLIP-Sticking-or-not-to-a-strict-FLIP-voting-process-td29978.html#a29988
> >>
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
Posted by Kostas Kloudas <kk...@gmail.com>.
+1 to what Aljoscha and Timo are proposing.
I would lean towards eliminating Google Docs altogether.
I think they served a purpose when discussions were among 3 to 4
people but with the current size of the community and the amount of
participants per discussion they become difficult to follow.
Best,
Kostas
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 to what Aljoscha said.
>
> The past has shown that discussions in Google docs do not reach all
> interested parties and the tracability of design decisions becomes
> difficult. Google services are also partially inaccessible in certain
> parts of world.
>
> We should actually do the opposite and not allow Google docs as FLIPs
> anymore. Commenting should be disabled by default.
>
> Regards,
> Timo
>
>
>
> On 18.02.20 15:20, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > thanks for starting this discussion!
> >
> > However, I have a somewhat opposing opinion to this: we should disallow
> > using Google Docs for FLIPs and FLIP discussions and follow the already
> > established process more strictly.
> >
> > My reasons for this are:
> > - discussions on the Google Doc are not reflected in Apache
> > infrastructure
> > - discussions on Google Docs are non-linear and hard to follow
> > - when discussions on Google Docs are resolved these discussions are
> > not visible/re-readable anymore (I know there's history, but meh)
> > - if discussion is kept purely to the ML this is easily observable for
> > any interested parties and it's there if somewhat want's to recheck the
> > discussion in the future
> > - going from Google Doc to Wiki is an extra step that seems
> > unnecessary to me (but that's just personal opinion, I mean, I don't
> > have to do the extra work here...)
> >
> > Best,
> > Aljoscha
> >
> > On 18.02.20 09:02, Hequn Cheng wrote:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> Currently, when we create a FLIP we follow the FLIP process in the Flink
> >> Improvement Proposals wiki[1]. The process mainly includes the following
> >> steps:
> >> 1. Create a FLIP wiki page.
> >> 2. Raise the discussion on the mailing list.
> >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal
> >> adopted.
> >> There is also a discussion[2] on the FLIP process which may be helpful
> >> for
> >> you.
> >>
> >> As it is not allowed commented on the wiki, we usually have a google doc
> >> for the discussion at step 2 and whenever there is a change we need to
> >> pick
> >> it to the wiki page. This makes things somehow redundant. To solve
> >> this, we
> >> can rearrange the step a little bit and avoid the pick:
> >> 1. Raise the discussion on the mailing list. The subject of the thread is
> >> of the format [DISCUSS][FLIP] {your FLIP heading}. Also, the design doc
> >> should follow the FLIP-Template strictly. (The [FLIP] tag is used to
> >> inform
> >> people that it is a FLIP discussion and more attention should be paid.)
> >> 2. Create a FLIP wiki page once we reached an agreement on the
> >> discussion.
> >> We can simply copy the google doc into the FLIP wiki page.
> >> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal
> >> adopted. It should be noted that we should always vote on a FLIP wiki
> >> page
> >> instead of a google doc. The wiki page is the final version of the google
> >> doc.
> >>
> >> This can bring some benefits:
> >> 1. Make the discussion more effective as we force people to write and
> >> discuss on a google doc that follows the FLIP template which
> >> includes necessary information such as Motivation, Interfaces, Proposed
> >> changes, etc.
> >> 2. Avoid redundant pick from google doc to Flink wiki page. Once we
> >> reached
> >> an agreement on the discussion, we can simply copy the google doc into
> >> the
> >> FLIP wiki page.
> >> 3. As adopted FLIP should mostly be "immutable", we can even make the
> >> wiki
> >> page PMC or committer editable since it just needs a simple copy from the
> >> google doc.
> >>
> >> Looking forward to your feedback!
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Hequn
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals
> >>
> >> [2]
> >> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-META-FLIP-Sticking-or-not-to-a-strict-FLIP-voting-process-td29978.html#a29988
> >>
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
Posted by Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org>.
+1 to what Aljoscha said.
The past has shown that discussions in Google docs do not reach all
interested parties and the tracability of design decisions becomes
difficult. Google services are also partially inaccessible in certain
parts of world.
We should actually do the opposite and not allow Google docs as FLIPs
anymore. Commenting should be disabled by default.
Regards,
Timo
On 18.02.20 15:20, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for starting this discussion!
>
> However, I have a somewhat opposing opinion to this: we should disallow
> using Google Docs for FLIPs and FLIP discussions and follow the already
> established process more strictly.
>
> My reasons for this are:
> - discussions on the Google Doc are not reflected in Apache
> infrastructure
> - discussions on Google Docs are non-linear and hard to follow
> - when discussions on Google Docs are resolved these discussions are
> not visible/re-readable anymore (I know there's history, but meh)
> - if discussion is kept purely to the ML this is easily observable for
> any interested parties and it's there if somewhat want's to recheck the
> discussion in the future
> - going from Google Doc to Wiki is an extra step that seems
> unnecessary to me (but that's just personal opinion, I mean, I don't
> have to do the extra work here...)
>
> Best,
> Aljoscha
>
> On 18.02.20 09:02, Hequn Cheng wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Currently, when we create a FLIP we follow the FLIP process in the Flink
>> Improvement Proposals wiki[1]. The process mainly includes the following
>> steps:
>> 1. Create a FLIP wiki page.
>> 2. Raise the discussion on the mailing list.
>> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal
>> adopted.
>> There is also a discussion[2] on the FLIP process which may be helpful
>> for
>> you.
>>
>> As it is not allowed commented on the wiki, we usually have a google doc
>> for the discussion at step 2 and whenever there is a change we need to
>> pick
>> it to the wiki page. This makes things somehow redundant. To solve
>> this, we
>> can rearrange the step a little bit and avoid the pick:
>> 1. Raise the discussion on the mailing list. The subject of the thread is
>> of the format [DISCUSS][FLIP] {your FLIP heading}. Also, the design doc
>> should follow the FLIP-Template strictly. (The [FLIP] tag is used to
>> inform
>> people that it is a FLIP discussion and more attention should be paid.)
>> 2. Create a FLIP wiki page once we reached an agreement on the
>> discussion.
>> We can simply copy the google doc into the FLIP wiki page.
>> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal
>> adopted. It should be noted that we should always vote on a FLIP wiki
>> page
>> instead of a google doc. The wiki page is the final version of the google
>> doc.
>>
>> This can bring some benefits:
>> 1. Make the discussion more effective as we force people to write and
>> discuss on a google doc that follows the FLIP template which
>> includes necessary information such as Motivation, Interfaces, Proposed
>> changes, etc.
>> 2. Avoid redundant pick from google doc to Flink wiki page. Once we
>> reached
>> an agreement on the discussion, we can simply copy the google doc into
>> the
>> FLIP wiki page.
>> 3. As adopted FLIP should mostly be "immutable", we can even make the
>> wiki
>> page PMC or committer editable since it just needs a simple copy from the
>> google doc.
>>
>> Looking forward to your feedback!
>>
>> Best,
>> Hequn
>>
>> [1]
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals
>>
>> [2]
>> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-META-FLIP-Sticking-or-not-to-a-strict-FLIP-voting-process-td29978.html#a29988
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on FLIP Process
Posted by Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>.
Hi,
thanks for starting this discussion!
However, I have a somewhat opposing opinion to this: we should disallow
using Google Docs for FLIPs and FLIP discussions and follow the already
established process more strictly.
My reasons for this are:
- discussions on the Google Doc are not reflected in Apache infrastructure
- discussions on Google Docs are non-linear and hard to follow
- when discussions on Google Docs are resolved these discussions are
not visible/re-readable anymore (I know there's history, but meh)
- if discussion is kept purely to the ML this is easily observable for
any interested parties and it's there if somewhat want's to recheck the
discussion in the future
- going from Google Doc to Wiki is an extra step that seems
unnecessary to me (but that's just personal opinion, I mean, I don't
have to do the extra work here...)
Best,
Aljoscha
On 18.02.20 09:02, Hequn Cheng wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Currently, when we create a FLIP we follow the FLIP process in the Flink
> Improvement Proposals wiki[1]. The process mainly includes the following
> steps:
> 1. Create a FLIP wiki page.
> 2. Raise the discussion on the mailing list.
> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal adopted.
> There is also a discussion[2] on the FLIP process which may be helpful for
> you.
>
> As it is not allowed commented on the wiki, we usually have a google doc
> for the discussion at step 2 and whenever there is a change we need to pick
> it to the wiki page. This makes things somehow redundant. To solve this, we
> can rearrange the step a little bit and avoid the pick:
> 1. Raise the discussion on the mailing list. The subject of the thread is
> of the format [DISCUSS][FLIP] {your FLIP heading}. Also, the design doc
> should follow the FLIP-Template strictly. (The [FLIP] tag is used to inform
> people that it is a FLIP discussion and more attention should be paid.)
> 2. Create a FLIP wiki page once we reached an agreement on the discussion.
> We can simply copy the google doc into the FLIP wiki page.
> 3. Once the proposal is finalized, call a vote to have the proposal
> adopted. It should be noted that we should always vote on a FLIP wiki page
> instead of a google doc. The wiki page is the final version of the google
> doc.
>
> This can bring some benefits:
> 1. Make the discussion more effective as we force people to write and
> discuss on a google doc that follows the FLIP template which
> includes necessary information such as Motivation, Interfaces, Proposed
> changes, etc.
> 2. Avoid redundant pick from google doc to Flink wiki page. Once we reached
> an agreement on the discussion, we can simply copy the google doc into the
> FLIP wiki page.
> 3. As adopted FLIP should mostly be "immutable", we can even make the wiki
> page PMC or committer editable since it just needs a simple copy from the
> google doc.
>
> Looking forward to your feedback!
>
> Best,
> Hequn
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals
> [2]
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-META-FLIP-Sticking-or-not-to-a-strict-FLIP-voting-process-td29978.html#a29988
>