I like the idea of a "final" step of exporting the Google Doc to markdown and checking it in, if there is any tool that does an OK job (my experience with such tools over my lifetime has been underwhelming, but I'm always open to being pleasantly surprised). PDF would be a close second.
Kenn On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 5:41 AM Jan Lukavský <je...@seznam.cz> wrote: > Yes, I think that the discoverability and durability would be part of > some "process". There could be "informal" part, where the design can > take place virtually anywhere and the document can be owned by anyone > (as we do today), then it would be copied to a durable store (asf wiki?) > and a [DISCUSS] thread could be started on ML, followed by [VOTE] (if > needed?) after that, then the document would be marked as accepted and > will be turned into issues. I believe this is how the FLIPs and KIPs are > processed. > > Jan > > On 5/29/24 17:56, Robert Bradshaw via dev wrote: > > While I'm not opposed to having a more formal process for proposals to > > go from idea to consensus to implementation, I'm not sure how much > > this would solve the primary issues we face (discoverability and > > durability). But maybe that could be built into the process? At the > > very least we could have an "index" which would give identifiers (and > > hopefully good titles) to all the proposals, and maybe have an offline > > process to snapshot such docs (even just periodically pulling the > > content to a repo like I do with > > https://github.com/cython/cython-issues ). I have yet to find a medium > > (not even wikis) that facilitates conversation/collaborative editing > > to the extent that docs does, but I agree with the downside that > > ownership by random individuals can pose a problem. > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 7:07 AM Jan Lukavský <je...@seznam.cz> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> regarding changing the way we document past (and more importantly > >> future) changes, I've always been a big fan of the FLIP analogy [1]. I > >> would love if we could make this work for Beam as well, while preserving > >> the 'informal' part that I believe all of us want to keep. On the other > >> hand, this could make the design decisions more searchable, transparent > >> and get more people involved in the process. Having design documents > >> durable is of course a highly important part of it. > >> > >> Jan > >> > >> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/whfy3706w2d0q6rdk4kwyrzvhfd4b5kg > >> > >> On 5/29/24 15:04, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Yesterday someone asked me about the design doc linked from > >>> https://github.com/apache/beam/issues/18297 because it is now a 404. > >>> > >>> There are plenty of reasons a Google Doc might no longer be > >>> accessible. They exist outside the project's control. This is part of > >>> why ASF projects emphasize having discussions on the dev@ list and > >>> often put all their designs directly onto some ASF-hosted > >>> infrastructure, such as a Wiki (Example: > >>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals > ). > >>> In the early days we had a project-owned shared folder but it fell > >>> into disuse. > >>> > >>> In my opinion, Google Docs are still the best place for design docs to > >>> get feedback and be revised, but the lack of durability is a downside > >>> to stay aware of. I've also gotten lots of complaints of lack of > >>> discoverability and lack of systematization of design docs, neither of > >>> which would be addressed by a shared folder. > >>> > >>> I don't have a proposal or suggestion. I don't think this is super > >>> urgent, certainly not my personal highest priority, but I thought I'd > >>> just share this as food for thought. > >>> > >>> Kenn >
