OK. I have taken everyone's feedback into account. Preview at http://apache-beam-website-pull-requests.storage.googleapis.com/6718/roadmap/index.html
Summary: - Rephrased the highlights to be more dignified - Filled out everything I could think of to get specific roadmaps started - Moved portability roadmap to the new roadmap - Moved portability design docs (and others) to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BEAM/Apache+Beam - Moved "ongoing projects" to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BEAM/Apache+Beam Kenn On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 9:08 AM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 > > I would suggest to also modify https://beam.apache.org/contribute/ to > point to the new structure and remove duplicate content such as > https://beam.apache.org/contribute/portability/ > > Thanks > > > On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 6:09 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> it sounds good to me. I have some more long term ideas as well. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On 20/10/2018 03:09, Ahmet Altay wrote: >> > I looked at #6718, I think this is great as a starting point and not >> > just a mock. I particularly like that: >> > - It divides the roadmap along major component areas (SDKs, runners, >> > portability). This is good because (a) it provides a complete top down >> > picture and (b) allows groups of people working in these areas to build >> > their own roadmaps. This division would empower people working in those >> > components to build mini-roadmaps. This make sense to me because people >> > with most context in those components would likely to already have some >> > vision somewhere about the future of those components and they are >> > already working towards realizing those. Now, they can share it with >> > rest of the community and users in a structured way. >> > - The other good bit is that, there is a index page that pulls major >> > bits from each individual roadmap and provides a coherent list of where >> > the project is going. It would be very easy for users to just look at >> > this page and get a sense of the where the project is going. >> > >> > I believe this break down makes it easier for the most folks in the >> > community to participate in the process of building and roadmap. In my >> > opinion, we can merge Kenn's _mock_ and ask people to start filling in >> > the areas they care about. >> > >> > Ahmet >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org >> > <mailto:k...@apache.org>> wrote: >> > >> > I mocked up a little something >> > on https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/6718 >> > <https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/6718>. >> > >> > Kenn >> > >> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 5:33 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org >> > <mailto:t...@apache.org>> wrote: >> > >> > Indeed, our current in-progress subsection isn't visible enough. >> > It is also too coarse grained. Perhaps we can replace it with a >> > list of current and proposed initiatives? >> > >> > I could see the index live on the web site, but would prefer >> > individual, per-initiative pages to live on the wiki. That way >> > they are easy to maintain by respective contributors. >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 8:06 PM Kenneth Knowles < >> k...@apache.org >> > <mailto:k...@apache.org>> wrote: >> > >> > I think we can easily steer clear of those concerns. It >> > should not look like a company's roadmap. This is just a >> > term that users search for and ask for. It might be an >> > incremental improvement >> > on https://beam.apache.org/contribute/#works-in-progress >> > <https://beam.apache.org/contribute/#works-in-progress> to >> > present it more for users, to just give them a picture of >> > the trajectory. For example, Beam Python on Flink would >> > probably be of considerable interest but it is buried at >> > https://beam.apache.org/contribute/portability/#status >> > <https://beam.apache.org/contribute/portability/#status>. >> > >> > Kenn >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 6:49 PM Thomas Weise < >> t...@apache.org >> > <mailto:t...@apache.org>> wrote: >> > >> > As I understand it the term "roadmap" is not favored. It >> > may convey the impression of an outside entity that >> > controls what is being worked on and when. At least in >> > theory contributions are volunteer work and individuals >> > decide what they take up. There are projects that have a >> > "list of initiatives" or "improvement proposals" that >> > are either in idea phase or ongoing. Those provide an >> > idea what is on the radar and perhaps that is a >> > sufficient for those looking for the overall direction? >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:08 PM Kenneth Knowles >> > <k...@apache.org <mailto:k...@apache.org>> wrote: >> > >> > Did some searching about to see what other projects >> > have done. Most OSS projects with open governance >> > don't actually have such a thing AFAICT. Here are >> > some from various [types of] projects. Please >> > contribute links for any project you can think of >> > that might be interesting examples. >> > >> > My personal favorite for readability and content is >> > Bazel. It does not do timelines, but says what they >> > are most focused on. It has fewer, larger, items >> > than our "Ongoing Projects" section. Then some >> > breakouts into roadmaps for sub-bits. >> > >> > Apache Flink (roadmap doc is stale, FLIPs nice and >> > readable though) >> > - >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Release+and+Feature+Plan >> > < >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Release+and+Feature+Plan >> > >> > - >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals >> > < >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals >> > >> > >> > Apache Spark (no roadmap doc I could find, SPIPs not >> > in real readable format): >> > - >> https://spark.apache.org/improvement-proposals.html >> > < >> https://spark.apache.org/improvement-proposals.html> >> > >> > Apache Apex >> > - http://apex.apache.org/roadmap.html >> > <http://apex.apache.org/roadmap.html> >> > >> > Apache Calcite Avatica >> > - >> https://calcite.apache.org/avatica/docs/roadmap.html >> > < >> https://calcite.apache.org/avatica/docs/roadmap.html> >> > >> > Apache Kafka >> > - >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Future+release+plan >> > < >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Future+release+plan> >> > >> > Tensorflow >> > - https://www.tensorflow.org/community/roadmap >> > <https://www.tensorflow.org/community/roadmap> >> > >> > Kubernetes >> > - >> https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/milestones >> > < >> https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/milestones> >> > >> > Firefox >> > - https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Roadmap >> > <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Roadmap> >> > >> > Servo >> > - https://github.com/servo/servo/wiki/Roadmap >> > <https://github.com/servo/servo/wiki/Roadmap> >> > >> > Bazel >> > - https://bazel.build/roadmap.html >> > <https://bazel.build/roadmap.html> >> > >> > Kenn >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:34 AM Tim Robertson >> > <timrobertson...@gmail.com >> > <mailto:timrobertson...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > >> > Thanks Kenn, >> > >> > I think this is a very good idea. >> > >> > My preference would be part of the website and >> > not on a wiki. Those who need to contribute can >> > do so easily and I find wikis often get >> > messy/stale/overwhelming. The website will also >> > mean that we can use dev@ and Jira to track, >> > discuss and help agree upon the roadmap content >> > in a more controlled manner than a wiki which >> > can change without notification. >> > >> > I find it difficult to provide input on style / >> > format without mentioning what might be on it >> > I'm afraid. >> > >> > - I'd favour a short concise read (7 mins?) with >> > links out to Jiras for more detail and to help >> > show transparent progress >> > >> > - Potential users currently observing the >> > project is a very important audience IMO >> > (en-premise Hadoop users, enterprise users >> > seeking Kerberos support, AWS cloud users etc). >> > Might it help for us to identify the audiences >> > the roadmap is intended for to help steer the >> style? >> > >> > Tim >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 6:35 PM Kenneth Knowles >> > <k...@apache.org <mailto:k...@apache.org>> >> wrote: >> > >> > Personally, I think cwiki is best for dev >> > community, while important stuff for users >> > should go on the web site. But experimenting >> > with the content on cwiki seems like a quick >> > and easy thing to try out. >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 1:43 AM Maximilian >> > Michels <m...@apache.org >> > <mailto:m...@apache.org>> wrote: >> > >> > Great idea, Kenn! >> > >> > How about putting the roadmap in the >> > Confluent wiki? We can link the >> > page from the web site. >> > >> > The timeline should not be too specific >> > but should give users an idea of >> > what to expect. >> > >> > On 10.10.18 22:43, Romain Manni-Bucau >> wrote: >> > > What about a link in the menu. It >> > should contain a list of features and >> > > estimate date with probable error >> > (like "in 5 months +- 1 months) >> > > otherwise it does not bring much IMHO. >> > > >> > > Le mer. 10 oct. 2018 23:32, Kenneth >> > Knowles <k...@apache.org >> > <mailto:k...@apache.org> >> > > <mailto:k...@apache.org >> > <mailto:k...@apache.org>>> a écrit : >> > > >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > We made an attempt at putting >> > together a sort of roadmap [1] in the >> > > past and also some wide-ranging >> > threads about what could be on it >> > > [2]. and I think we should pick it >> > up again. The description I >> > > really liked was "strategic and >> > user impacting initiatives (ongoing >> > > and future) in an easy to consume >> > format" [3]. It seems that we had >> > > feedback asking for a Roadmap at >> > the London summit [4]. >> > > >> > > I would like to first focus on >> > meta-questions rather than what would >> > > be on it: >> > > >> > > - What style / format should it >> > have to be most useful for users? >> > > - Where should it be presented? >> > > >> > > I asked a couple people to try to >> > find the roadmap on the web site, >> > > as a test, and they didn't really >> > know which tab to click on first, >> > > so that's a starting problem. They >> > didn't even find Works In >> > > Progress [5] after clicking >> > Contribute. The level of detail of that >> > > list varies widely. >> > > >> > > I'd also love to see hypothetical >> > formats for it, to see how to >> > > balance pithiness with crucial >> > details. >> > > >> > > Kenn >> > > >> > > [1] >> > > >> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4e1fffa2fde8e750c6d769bf4335853ad05b360b8bd248ad119cc185@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >> > < >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4e1fffa2fde8e750c6d769bf4335853ad05b360b8bd248ad119cc185@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >> > >> > > [2] >> > > >> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f750f288af8dab3f468b869bf5a3f473094f4764db419567f33805d0@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >> > < >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f750f288af8dab3f468b869bf5a3f473094f4764db419567f33805d0@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >> > >> > > [3] >> > > >> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/60d0333fd9e2c7be2f55e33b0d145f2908e3fe645c008636c86e1133@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >> > < >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/60d0333fd9e2c7be2f55e33b0d145f2908e3fe645c008636c86e1133@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >> > >> > > [4] >> > > >> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/aa1306da25029dff12a49ba3ce63f2caf6a5f8ba73eda879c8403f3f@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >> > < >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/aa1306da25029dff12a49ba3ce63f2caf6a5f8ba73eda879c8403f3f@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >> > >> > > >> > > [5] >> > >> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/#works-in-progress >> > < >> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/#works-in-progress> >> > > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> jbono...@apache.org >> http://blog.nanthrax.net >> Talend - http://www.talend.com >> >
