I like the questions (aside maybe from the cost one which perhaps does not matter much here), especially since they encourage explaining things in a more plain language than generally used by specs.
But I don't think we can ignore design aspects; it's been my observation that a good portion of SPIPs, when proposed, already have at the very least some sort of implementation (even if it's a barely working p.o.c.), so it would also be good to have that information up front if it's available. (So I guess I'm just repeating Sean's reply.) On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 11:23 AM Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > > I helped craft the current SPIP template last year. I was recently > (re-)introduced to the Heilmeier Catechism, a set of questions DARPA > developed to evaluate proposals. The set of questions are: > > - What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely no > jargon. > - How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice? > - What is new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful? > - Who cares? If you are successful, what difference will it make? > - What are the risks? > - How much will it cost? > - How long will it take? > - What are the mid-term and final “exams” to check for success? > > When I read the above list, it resonates really well because they are almost > always the same set of questions I ask myself and others before I decide > whether something is worth doing. In some ways, our SPIP template tries to > capture some of these (e.g. target persona), but are not as explicit and well > articulated. > > What do people think about replacing the current SPIP template with the above? > > At a high level, I think the Heilmeier's Catechism emphasizes less about the > "how", and more the "why" and "what", which is what I'd argue SPIPs should be > about. The hows should be left in design docs for larger projects. > > -- Marcelo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org