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 > > >
