+1 for formalizing the process, enhancing it and documenting clearly. I noticed that Apache Airflow has a cool way of both creating AIPs and keeping track of all of them. There is a "Create new AIP" <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Airflow+Improvements+Proposals> button on their Confluence. This way, no AIP gets lost and all are kept in one place. Please keep in mind that this is also the problem we want to solve in Beam and try to keep track of all the documents we have so far*. It's certainly good to solve that problem too, if possible.
Also the AIP structure <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-10+Multi-layered+and+multi-stage+official+Airflow+CI+image> is something that I find nice - There's place for all additional resources, JIRAs, discussion in comments and state of the proposal. Even if we don't choose to use Confluence, we definitely could use a similar template with all that information for our google docs proposals or any other tool we stick to. Thanks! *thank you, Ismael and Alexey, for all the reminders under the proposals to add them to Confluence list <https://beam.apache.org/contribute/design-documents/>! :) wt., 10 gru 2019 o 13:29 jincheng sun <sunjincheng...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > Thanks for bring up this discussion Jan! > > +1 for cearly define BIP for beam. > > And I think would be nice to initialize a concept document for BIP. Just a > reminder: the document may contains: > > - How many kinds of improvement in beam. > - What kind of improvement should to create a BIP. > - What should be included in a BIP. > - Who can create the BIP. > - Who can participate in the discussion of BIP and who can vote for BIP. > - What are the possible limitations of BiP, such as whether it is > necessary to complete the dev of BIP in one release. > - How to track a BIP. > > Here is a question: I found out a policy[1] in beam, but only contains the > poilcy of release , my question is does beam have something called Bylaws? > Similar as Flink[1]. > > Anyway, I like your proposals Jan :) > > Best, > Jincheng > [1] https://beam.apache.org/community/policies/ > [2] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Bylaws#FlinkBylaws-Approvals > > > David Morávek <david.mora...@gmail.com> 于2019年12月10日周二 下午2:33写道： > >> Hi Jan, >> >> I think this is more pretty much what we currently do, just a little bit >> more transparent for the community. If the process is standardized, it can >> open doors for bigger contributions from people not familiar with the >> process. Also it's way easier to track progress of BIPs, than documents >> linked from the mailing list. >> >> Big +1 ;) >> >> D. >> >> On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 12:42 PM Jan Lukavský <je...@seznam.cz> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'd like to revive a discussion that was taken some year and a half ago >>> [1], which included a concept of "BIP" (Beam Improvement Proposal) - an >>> equivalent of "FLIP" (flink), "KIP" (kafka), "SPIP" (spark), and so on. >>> >>> The discussion then ended without any (public) conclusion, so I'd like >>> to pick up from there. There were questions related to: >>> >>> a) how does the concept of BIP differ from simple plain JIRA? >>> >>> b) what does it bring to the community? >>> >>> I'd like to outline my point of view on both of these aspects (they are >>> related). >>> >>> BIP differs from JIRA by definition of a process: >>> >>> BIP -> vote -> consensus -> JIRA -> implementation >>> >>> This process (although it might seem a little unnecessary formal) brings >>> the following benefits: >>> >>> i) improves community's overall awareness of planned and in-progress >>> features >>> >>> ii) makes it possible to prioritize long-term goals (create "roadmap" >>> that was mentioned in the referred thread) >>> >>> iii) by casting explicit vote on each improvement proposal diminishes >>> the probability of wasted work - as opposed to our current state, where >>> it is hard to tell when there is a consensus and what actions need to be >>> done in order to reach one if there isn't >>> >>> iv) BIPs that eventually pass a vote can be regarded as "to be >>> included in some short term" and so new BIPs can build upon them, >>> without the risk of having to be redefined if their dependency for >>> whatever reason don't make it to the implementation >>> >>> Although this "process" might look rigid and corporate, it actually >>> brings better transparency and overall community health. This is >>> especially important as the community grows and becomes more and more >>> distributed. There are many, many open questions in this proposal that >>> need to be clarified, my current intent is to grab a grasp about how the >>> community feels about this. >>> >>> Looking forward to any comments, >>> >>> Jan >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4e1fffa2fde8e750c6d769bf4335853ad05b360b8bd248ad119cc185%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >>> >>>
