Related to #3-5: Also, as we discussed earlier [1], there will be an additional level of tracking in jira for deeper proposal-style conversations to help us keep track of which ones are still under discussion on the dev@ list (which, as usual, remains the source of truth).
The details are still in a pull request [2], which is blocked on a creation of the new JIRA workflow [3]. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f030424d9f9de6ff7510ff444280a64bdaa0ac430066e96df0c43fe8@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/42 [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-12698 On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi Max and the others, > > For 5, it was more the idea to have a agreement on a proposal. 2 weeks > without any feedback (it's not two weeks "static") is just an idea. The > discussion can be extended for as long as we want if there are still some > discussions. > > Agree on 4, it's just a best effort. The idea is to provide kind of > summary sometime in order to hide some details and technical complexity > that don't always bring value from a community perspective. > > I will send an update later today about what we discussed. > > Thanks > Regards > JB > > > On 10/07/2016 10:58 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote: > >> Hi JB! >> >> 1. We create a new mailing list: rev...@beam.incubator.apache.org. >>> 2. We configure github integration to send all pull request comments on >>> review mailing list. It would allow to track and simplify the way to read >>> the comments and to keep up to date. >>> >> >> I already have it organized that way through filters but having a >> dedicated mailing list is a much better idea. >> >> 3. A technical discussion should be send on dev mailing list with the >>> [DISCUSS] keyword in the subject. >>> 4. Once a discussion is open, the author should periodically send an >>> update on the discussion (once a week) >containing a summary of the last >>> exchanges happened on the Jira or github (quick and direct summary). >>> >> >> We can try that on a best-effort basis. Enforcing this seems to be >> difficult and could also introduce verbosity on the mailing list. >> >> 5. Once we consider the discussion close (no update in the last two >>> weeks), the author send a [CLOSE] e-mail on the thread. >>> >> >> I think it is hard to decide when a discussion is closed. Two weeks >> seems like a too short amount of time. >> >> In general, +1 for an open development process. >> >> -Max >> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 4:05 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 except [4] for me, too. [4] may be replaced with linking DISCUSSION >>> mail >>> thread archive to JIRA. >>> Yes it doesn't update news on discussion to JIRA and/or Github, but at >>> least someone needed to see can find out manually. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) >>> >>> 2016년 10월 7일 (금) 오전 11:00, Satish Duggana <satish.dugg...@gmail.com>님이 >>> 작성: >>> >>> +1 for proposal except for [4]. Agree with Raghu on [4] as it may be >>>> burdensome to update with summaries and folks may start replying >>>> comments >>>> on those summaries etc and conclusions are updated on respective design >>>> docs. We may want to start without [4]. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Satish. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Raghu Angadi >>>> <rang...@google.com.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 for rev...@beam.incubator.apache.org. Open lists are critically >>>>> important. >>>>> >>>>> My comment earlier was mainly about (4). Sorry about the not being >>>>> clear. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com.invalid >>>>> > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1 for supporting different working styles. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Kenneth Knowles >>>>>> >>>>> <k...@google.com.invalid >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 to rev...@beam.incubator.apache.org if it is turnkey for infra to >>>>>>> >>>>>> set >>>>> >>>>>> up, aka points 1 and 2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even though I would not personally read it via email, getting the >>>>>>> information in yet another format and infrastructure (and >>>>>>> >>>>>> stewardship) >>>> >>>>> is >>>>> >>>>>> valuable for search, archival, and supporting diverse work styles. >>>>>>> >>>>>> The >>>> >>>>> benefit might not be huge, but I think it will be enough to justify >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>> >>>>> (hopefully negligible) cost. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kenn >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 4:54 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi team, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> following the discussion we had about technical discussion that >>>>>>> >>>>>> should >>>> >>>>> happen on the mailing list, I would like to propose the following: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. We create a new mailing list: rev...@beam.incubator.apache.org. >>>>>>> 2. We configure github integration to send all pull request comments >>>>>>> >>>>>> on >>>> >>>>> review mailing list. It would allow to track and simplify the way to >>>>>>> read the comments and to keep up to date. >>>>>>> 3. A technical discussion should be send on dev mailing list with the >>>>>>> [DISCUSS] keyword in the subject. >>>>>>> 4. Once a discussion is open, the author should periodically send an >>>>>>> update on the discussion (once a week) containing a summary of the >>>>>>> >>>>>> last >>>> >>>>> exchanges happened on the Jira or github (quick and direct summary). >>>>>>> 5. Once we consider the discussion close (no update in the last two >>>>>>> weeks), the author send a [CLOSE] e-mail on the thread. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WDYT ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> JB >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>>>>> jbono...@apache.org >>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
