Uwe, I think this is an excellent idea. I've started https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cgN7mYzH30URDTaioHsCP2d80wKKHDNs9f5s7vdb2mA/edit?usp=sharing to collect some ideas and notes. Once we have gathered our thoughts there, we can put them in the appropriate places.
I think that some of the result will go into the FAQ, some into documentation (maybe more "how-to" and "getting started" guides in the respective language docs, as well as some "how to share Arrow data from X to Y"), and other things that we haven't yet done should go into a sort of Roadmap document on the main website. We have some very outdated content related to a roadmap on the confluence wiki that should be folded in as appropriate too. Neal On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:26 AM Uwe L. Korn <m...@uwekorn.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > there has been a lot of public discussions lately with some mentions of > actually informed, valid critique of things in the Arrow project. From my > perspective, these things include "there is not STL-native C++ Arrow API", > "the base build requires too much dependencies", "the pyarrow package is > really huge and you cannot select single components". These are things we > cannot tackle at the moment due to the lack of contributors to the project. > But we can use this as a basis to point people that critique the project on > this that this is not intentional but a lack of resources as well as it > provides another point of entry for new contributors looking for work. > > Thus I would like to start a document (possibly on the website) where we list > the major critiques on Arrow, mention our long-term solution to that and what > JIRAs need to be done for that. > > Would that be something others would also see as valuable? > > There has also been a lot of uninformed criticism, I think that can be best > combat by documentation, blog posts and public appearances at conferences and > is not covered by this proposal. > > Uwe
