It is nice the CEP remains what we vote on, for the sake of governance. is the "user experience" (or "operational guide") part of what we vote on ? is it as fixed as the rest of the cep doc (the input in/before the impl) ? if not, would it be better somewhere else ? i can see the need for both "here's a permanent copy of the CEP as it was voted on" and "here's how it ended up, with extra docs", but I don't know how/where the latter goes…
> On 26 Mar 2026, at 19:31, Joel Shepherd <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all - I wonder if there would be community support for including a "user > experience" section in CEPs going forward (no rules against retro-fitting > them either). > > The purpose of the section would be to describe how an operator would be > expected to enable, configure, upgrade (if necessary) and operate the feature > proposed in the CEP. > > Paulo wrote an "Operational Guide" section in CEP-62, which I found helpful > in getting a clear picture about what my responsibilities would be, as an > operator, if I wanted to use Sidecar to manage my node config. As I'm working > through the implementation of CEP-50, I'm also realizing that operators are > going to need to understand how to configure negotiation and know about > things that will end up either being sharp edges or fundamental changes in > behavior. (Did you know that unauthenticated, anonymous users are by default > super-users? Holy Privilege Escalation, Batman!) > > I plan to add an "Operational Guide" section to CEP-50 and probably revise it > as I better understand the implications of some of the changes required. I > think in general doing so as early as possible will get us to think early > about how easy or hard it will be for Cassandra users to adopt new > functionality, and hopefully push the project as a whole towards making it as > easy as possible. > > Thoughts? > > -- Joel. >
