+1 this looks like a great starting point. It is always beneficial for the user to know where the project is headed.
Sent from my iPhone > On 20 Oct 2018, at 03:09, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > > I looked at #6718, I think this is great as a starting point and not just a > mock. I particularly like that: > - It divides the roadmap along major component areas (SDKs, runners, > portability). This is good because (a) it provides a complete top down > picture and (b) allows groups of people working in these areas to build their > own roadmaps. This division would empower people working in those components > to build mini-roadmaps. This make sense to me because people with most > context in those components would likely to already have some vision > somewhere about the future of those components and they are already working > towards realizing those. Now, they can share it with rest of the community > and users in a structured way. > - The other good bit is that, there is a index page that pulls major bits > from each individual roadmap and provides a coherent list of where the > project is going. It would be very easy for users to just look at this page > and get a sense of the where the project is going. > > I believe this break down makes it easier for the most folks in the community > to participate in the process of building and roadmap. In my opinion, we can > merge Kenn's _mock_ and ask people to start filling in the areas they care > about. > > Ahmet > >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: >> I mocked up a little something on https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/6718. >> >> Kenn >> >>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 5:33 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: >>> Indeed, our current in-progress subsection isn't visible enough. It is also >>> too coarse grained. Perhaps we can replace it with a list of current and >>> proposed initiatives? >>> >>> I could see the index live on the web site, but would prefer individual, >>> per-initiative pages to live on the wiki. That way they are easy to >>> maintain by respective contributors. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 8:06 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> I think we can easily steer clear of those concerns. It should not look >>>> like a company's roadmap. This is just a term that users search for and >>>> ask for. It might be an incremental improvement on >>>> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/#works-in-progress to present it more >>>> for users, to just give them a picture of the trajectory. For example, >>>> Beam Python on Flink would probably be of considerable interest but it is >>>> buried at https://beam.apache.org/contribute/portability/#status. >>>> >>>> Kenn >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 6:49 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> As I understand it the term "roadmap" is not favored. It may convey the >>>>> impression of an outside entity that controls what is being worked on and >>>>> when. At least in theory contributions are volunteer work and individuals >>>>> decide what they take up. There are projects that have a "list of >>>>> initiatives" or "improvement proposals" that are either in idea phase or >>>>> ongoing. Those provide an idea what is on the radar and perhaps that is a >>>>> sufficient for those looking for the overall direction? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:08 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> Did some searching about to see what other projects have done. Most OSS >>>>>> projects with open governance don't actually have such a thing AFAICT. >>>>>> Here are some from various [types of] projects. Please contribute links >>>>>> for any project you can think of that might be interesting examples. >>>>>> >>>>>> My personal favorite for readability and content is Bazel. It does not >>>>>> do timelines, but says what they are most focused on. It has fewer, >>>>>> larger, items than our "Ongoing Projects" section. Then some breakouts >>>>>> into roadmaps for sub-bits. >>>>>> >>>>>> Apache Flink (roadmap doc is stale, FLIPs nice and readable though) >>>>>> - >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Release+and+Feature+Plan >>>>>> - >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals >>>>>> >>>>>> Apache Spark (no roadmap doc I could find, SPIPs not in real readable >>>>>> format): >>>>>> - https://spark.apache.org/improvement-proposals.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Apache Apex >>>>>> - http://apex.apache.org/roadmap.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Apache Calcite Avatica >>>>>> - https://calcite.apache.org/avatica/docs/roadmap.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Apache Kafka >>>>>> - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Future+release+plan >>>>>> >>>>>> Tensorflow >>>>>> - https://www.tensorflow.org/community/roadmap >>>>>> >>>>>> Kubernetes >>>>>> - https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/milestones >>>>>> >>>>>> Firefox >>>>>> - https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Roadmap >>>>>> >>>>>> Servo >>>>>> - https://github.com/servo/servo/wiki/Roadmap >>>>>> >>>>>> Bazel >>>>>> - https://bazel.build/roadmap.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Kenn >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:34 AM Tim Robertson >>>>>>> <timrobertson...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Thanks Kenn, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think this is a very good idea. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My preference would be part of the website and not on a wiki. Those who >>>>>>> need to contribute can do so easily and I find wikis often get >>>>>>> messy/stale/overwhelming. The website will also mean that we can use >>>>>>> dev@ and Jira to track, discuss and help agree upon the roadmap content >>>>>>> in a more controlled manner than a wiki which can change without >>>>>>> notification. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I find it difficult to provide input on style / format without >>>>>>> mentioning what might be on it I'm afraid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - I'd favour a short concise read (7 mins?) with links out to Jiras for >>>>>>> more detail and to help show transparent progress >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Potential users currently observing the project is a very important >>>>>>> audience IMO (en-premise Hadoop users, enterprise users seeking >>>>>>> Kerberos support, AWS cloud users etc). Might it help for us to >>>>>>> identify the audiences the roadmap is intended for to help steer the >>>>>>> style? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 6:35 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Personally, I think cwiki is best for dev community, while important >>>>>>>> stuff for users should go on the web site. But experimenting with the >>>>>>>> content on cwiki seems like a quick and easy thing to try out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 1:43 AM Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Great idea, Kenn! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How about putting the roadmap in the Confluent wiki? We can link the >>>>>>>>> page from the web site. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The timeline should not be too specific but should give users an idea >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> what to expect. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10.10.18 22:43, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >>>>>>>>> > What about a link in the menu. It should contain a list of features >>>>>>>>> > and >>>>>>>>> > estimate date with probable error (like "in 5 months +- 1 months) >>>>>>>>> > otherwise it does not bring much IMHO. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Le mer. 10 oct. 2018 23:32, Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org >>>>>>>>> > <mailto:k...@apache.org>> a écrit : >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Hi all, >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > We made an attempt at putting together a sort of roadmap [1] in >>>>>>>>> > the >>>>>>>>> > past and also some wide-ranging threads about what could be on >>>>>>>>> > it >>>>>>>>> > [2]. and I think we should pick it up again. The description I >>>>>>>>> > really liked was "strategic and user impacting initiatives >>>>>>>>> > (ongoing >>>>>>>>> > and future) in an easy to consume format" [3]. It seems that we >>>>>>>>> > had >>>>>>>>> > feedback asking for a Roadmap at the London summit [4]. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > I would like to first focus on meta-questions rather than what >>>>>>>>> > would >>>>>>>>> > be on it: >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > - What style / format should it have to be most useful for >>>>>>>>> > users? >>>>>>>>> > - Where should it be presented? >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > I asked a couple people to try to find the roadmap on the web >>>>>>>>> > site, >>>>>>>>> > as a test, and they didn't really know which tab to click on >>>>>>>>> > first, >>>>>>>>> > so that's a starting problem. They didn't even find Works In >>>>>>>>> > Progress [5] after clicking Contribute. The level of detail of >>>>>>>>> > that >>>>>>>>> > list varies widely. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > I'd also love to see hypothetical formats for it, to see how to >>>>>>>>> > balance pithiness with crucial details. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Kenn >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > [1] >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4e1fffa2fde8e750c6d769bf4335853ad05b360b8bd248ad119cc185@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >>>>>>>>> > [2] >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f750f288af8dab3f468b869bf5a3f473094f4764db419567f33805d0@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >>>>>>>>> > [3] >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/60d0333fd9e2c7be2f55e33b0d145f2908e3fe645c008636c86e1133@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >>>>>>>>> > [4] >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/aa1306da25029dff12a49ba3ce63f2caf6a5f8ba73eda879c8403f3f@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > [5] https://beam.apache.org/contribute/#works-in-progress >>>>>>>>> > >
