GitHub Discussions could be a solution that we should consider. We used it on the Trino side but still have mixed results with it. On one hand, there's a lot of overlap between creating Issues and Discussions. In fact, GitHub allows you to migrate Issues that only involve discussing a topic, or something that can't immediately be tied to any upcoming work to be a discussion. This keeps the Issue backlog focused on actionable requests.
That said, Discussions can become difficult to maintain if no person or body of people drives it. Of course, the community will drive it to some degree, especially when it's new and shiny, but GitHub Discussions, much like Slack, becomes a support channel that encourages the messy human interactions that help us arrive at a solution. So the question is do we want to open Discussions knowing that it may become a second support channel compared to Slack? Would we want to use Discussions in place of Slack so that there's still a single triage channel? I personally lean towards keeping a single real-time "support-like" channel in the community, otherwise, you will fragment the attention of the community. Most of what we would need to support the centralization of proposals can be accomplished with Issues. Slack still seems to be the dominant interactive system of choice and where we are now so I wouldn't suggest moving that. I do think this is worth a discussion at the next sync so I'll add it. In full transparency, Tabular is building an Iceberg-focused Discourse forum <https://discourse.org/> (not to be confused with Discord <https://discord.com/>) instance to solve the problem of centralizing discussions in the community to wiki-style answers we can link to and having dedicated content curators to those solutions. Think of it as an Iceberg-specific Stack Overflow with lightened rules to allow more open discussion. Adding GitHub discussions wouldn't collide with our goals as it would become another signal that we could use to inform the answers on our forum. It still comes back to the value given the cost for the community to manage it. I know I have a lot of thoughts around this and its because I've been down this road before, but perhaps there's a nuance I'm not seeing yet. On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 7:15 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Just to be clear: we can GH Discussions subjects template via > .asf.yaml but we have to open a ticket to INFRA to enable it. > > Regards > JB > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 1:56 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > > Hi Brian > > > > I like the idea of GitHub. Why not enabling (in .asf.yml) GitHub > > discussions ? A GitHub Discussion could be a good place to share the > > doc and exchange both in the doc and in the discussion comments. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 1:13 PM Brian Olsen <bitsondata...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Hey JB, > > > > > > I totally agree we need a place to centralize this but I'm nit a huge > fan of all the lists we currently have going on the site. SSGs are just not > an accessible method of storing lists. ( roadmap, blogs, videos, etc..). > > > > > > The roadmap is barely touched for this reason. I want to propose we > move roadmap to GitHub projects. > > > > > > Likewise, I feel like somewhere on GitHub might be a better location > for this type of thing. > > > > > > Maybe posting these in GitHub issues and adding a proposal label? > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:28 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Jan > > >> > > >> Thanks for the reminder. I will take a look. > > >> > > >> As proposed by Renjie a few days ago, it would be great to > > >> gather/store all document proposals in a central place. > > >> > > >> If there are no objections, I will prepare a PR for the website about > > >> that (with a space listing/linking all proposals). > > >> > > >> Regards > > >> JB > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:22 AM Jan Kaul <jank...@mailbox.org.invalid> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Hi all, > > >> > > > >> > I've created an issue to propose a design for a Materialized View > Spec a while ago. After further discussion we reached a first draft for the > spec. It would be great if you could have another look at the design and > share your feedback. > > >> > > > >> > Here is the google doc: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UnhldHhe3Grz8JBngwXPA6ZZord1xMedY5ukEhZYF-A/edit?usp=sharing > > >> > > > >> > Thanks in advance, > > >> > > > >> > Jan >
