Having an open discussion about what we want to release as a community on the next version makes total sense to me. I also agree that the roadmap should not be written on stone and that we should be flexible if we believe that we need to. We should also take this discussion as an opportunity to discuss how we plan to use CEPs moving forward. .
Le lun. 1 mars 2021 à 13:21, Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> a écrit : > I guess I meant that I don't foresee roadmap discussions having a hard > requirement of CEP for all goals we might discuss, though it would probably > be expected that many of the biggest proposals would already at least have > a minimal CEP to be filed, you're right. > > Certainly if an advanced CEP exists I hadn't meant to exclude it, I more > meant that the CEP process is quite involved and spans the lifetime of the > work, and a roadmap helps the project decide on goals irrespective of a > CEP, and helps resource a CEP early in its lifecycle. > > On 01/03/2021, 11:15, "Mick Semb Wever" <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > I think of a roadmap as a pre-CEP activity for upcoming releases, > items > > thereon beginning the CEP process, … > > > > > What about having it the other way around? That the roadmap is a > visualisation of the CEPs, i.e. those past initial triage that have > initial > commitment and momentum. A reflective approach of the roadmap, just a > visualisation of existing processes, prevents the adding of a new > process > to the community. It will also incentivise the thoroughness of new > CEPs. > > The benefit of having the roadmap as a separate manual process pre-CEP > might save us the cost of creating CEPs that get rejected, but I can't > see > that actually being a problem for us. > > +1 to having the roadmap, in any form. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
