Can we modify the document to make this really explicit then? Right now, the
language suggests the process is mandated, rather than encouraged and
beneficial.
It would be nice to frame it as a positive and incentivised undertaking by
authors, and to list the intended advantages, as well as the potential
disadvantages of not undertaking it, while making it clear it is left entirely
to their own judgement whether or not to do so.
To be really clear, I do not refer to the flexible definition of the process,
but to whether participation in even a modest interpretation of the process is
necessary at all. This is a form of pre-registration for work, to achieve
community buy-in. If you want to go ahead and do something on your own, you
only risk difficulty and delays when obtaining community buy-in after the fact.
Let's not dissuade hobbyists, part-timers or scratching an itch by suggesting
their work will be discounted because it wasn't pre-registered.
On 17/09/2019, 06:46, "Mick Semb Wever" <m...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think we need to have a meta discussion about the goal for
> introducing a new process.
Indeed, and these were only two brief examples that came to me. Another,
using the sidecar proposal as an example, is simply to ensure a little patience
is taken during the initial brainstorming and navigation phase, to give more
open collaboration a better chance. What's in the landscape, where's the value,
who might be interested in getting involved in this, etc etc. I think the C*
community has typically been pretty amazing at this, but it would be nice to
see it formalised a bit better.
> By not mandating it, we do not need to define where it is necessary;
> the larger and more impactful the change, the greater the incentive to
> the author.
This is what Scott highlighted well.
Sure, a CEP could be opened with nothing but a title to begin with. And
where it goes from there is up to the working group that materialises. Just to
have a landing space for new features that's not Jira, I believe would be of
value.
And in no way should the CEP be a return to waterfall. As you say, late
discoveries and feedback (as annoying as it can be) is all part of the agile
game.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
