The relevant links are either the top-level pages: - https://iceberg.apache.org/blogs/ - https://iceberg.apache.org/talks/ or the individual posts they reference. Examples from each page: - https://iceberg.apache.org/blogs/#kafka-to-iceberg-exploring-the-options - https://iceberg.apache.org/talks/#supporting-s3-tables-in-daft
Each post already links to an external source, so fixing the links should be relatively easy. I find the current blogs and posts useful, and they serve as a nice look back at the project’s history. However, I think we should find another home for this content. Just not in the iceberg.apache.org site, where every change requires approval through the repo. I’m still in favor of removing these pages from the website and moving them to another location. Best, Kevin Liu On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 10:35 AM Anton Okolnychyi <aokolnyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the project is too big now for us to maintain the list in its > current form. I believe the original intent was to include references to > any mentions of Iceberg to boost visibility as there was no company that > would sponsor any media coverage for Iceberg in early days. At that time > the list of mentions was very small and we didn’t have any vendors. > > We can keep links accessible not to break books and other printed > materials. > > Also, +1 on an official blog with announcements similar to Flink and other > larger projects. > > - Anton > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 4:54 PM Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I could see us keeping a deprecated version of the page, but I think the >> rationale of boosting search engine impacts for blog posts that are already >> on the page is actually one of the reasons we should remove the page. As a >> community we don't want to have a set of "special" blog posts that the >> project gives special importance. If posts on this page get a boost on >> search engines that other posts don't get, it makes me a bit nervous. >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 11:41 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> It sounds reasonable to me. >>> >>> For background, Apache projects have different approaches about blog: >>> - some are using blog more like announcements for the projects but >>> also dependent projects (https://camel.apache.org/blog/) >>> - some are just listing blog post links related to the project >>> (https://karaf.apache.org/documentation.html#articles) >>> >>> The foundation has a blog related to news (https://news.apache.org/). >>> >>> I'm not a big fan of blog in projects with content (because it's hard >>> to maintain and never up to date), but I think it's valuable for the >>> community to easily find resources about the projects. >>> So, just a blog page with links to different blog posts is good enough >>> (but it needs some attention to be "maintained"). >>> >>> Just my $0.01 >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 11:03 PM Russell Spitzer >>> <russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Y'all >>> > >>> > We talked about this a bit in a community sync a while back and I know >>> a bunch of committers have >>> > been working off some of the consensus we reached then but I'm not >>> sure we ever actually documented >>> > this. >>> > >>> > 1. Should the Apache Iceberg community still maintain a set of Blogs >>> and Talks that are curated on the >>> > main site by committers and PMC members? >>> > >>> > The arguments in favor: >>> > >>> > The current state requires individuals to make decisions on about >>> inclusion/exclusion of content >>> > It is very difficult to maintain and keep up to date >>> > There are lots of blog and talk aggregations for Iceberg content out >>> there already >>> > >>> > The arguments against: >>> > >>> > Have an easy place for folks to find more Iceberg Content >>> > Have a location to post internal announcements >>> > ----------- >>> > >>> > Personally I think we should just drop the blogs site for now with the >>> option of bringing back an Iceberg >>> > dev only blog in the future and switch the Talks page to just link out >>> to the official Youtube channel which mostly >>> > has entries for Iceberg Summit and our community syncs. >>> > >>> > ------- >>> > >>> > 2. Should all vendor/integrations link out to external documentation >>> rather than having in tree maintained >>> > documentation? >>> > >>> > This I think is more straightforward. We have already had a lot of >>> link-rot and Integration documentation falling behind >>> > actual integrations. Here I really don't want to break any previous >>> hard links to Iceberg's docs so I think we should leave >>> > everything currently in tree, in tree. But for all new contributions >>> and on any updates to a vendor.md or integration.md we >>> > should always link out to third party documentation unless we are >>> documenting something that is actually in the Iceberg >>> > library (like S3FileIO and friends). >>> > >>> > Thanks as usual everyone, >>> > Russ >>> > >>> > Here is a PR with my suggested changes for the above two points >>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14110 >>> > >>> >>
