+1 I think this is a great suggestion. I agree a bit with Sean, but I think it is really about mapping these questions into some of the existing structure. These are a great way to think about projects, but they're general and it would help to rephrase them for a software project, like Matei's comment on considering cost. Similarly, we might rephrase objectives to be goals/non-goals and add something to highlight that we expect absolutely no Jargon. A design sketch is needed to argue how long it will take, what is new, and why it would be successful; adding these questions will help people understand how to go from that design sketch to an argument for that design. I think these will guide people to write proposals that is persuasive and well-formed.
rb On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 4:17 PM Jules Damji <dmat...@comcast.net> wrote: > +1 > > One could argue that the litany of the questions are really a double-click > on the essence: why, what, how. The three interrogatives ought to be the > essence and distillation of any proposal or technical exposition. > > Cheers > Jules > > Sent from my iPhone > Pardon the dumb thumb typos :) > > On Aug 31, 2018, at 11:23 AM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > > I helped craft the current SPIP template > <https://spark.apache.org/improvement-proposals.html> last year. I was > recently (re-)introduced to the Heilmeier Catechism, a set of questions > DARPA developed to evaluate proposals. The set of questions are: > > - What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely > no jargon. > - How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice? > - What is new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful? > - Who cares? If you are successful, what difference will it make? > - What are the risks? > - How much will it cost? > - How long will it take? > - What are the mid-term and final “exams” to check for success? > > When I read the above list, it resonates really well because they are > almost always the same set of questions I ask myself and others before I > decide whether something is worth doing. In some ways, our SPIP template > tries to capture some of these (e.g. target persona), but are not as > explicit and well articulated. > > What do people think about replacing the current SPIP template with the > above? > > At a high level, I think the Heilmeier's Catechism emphasizes less about > the "how", and more the "why" and "what", which is what I'd argue SPIPs > should be about. The hows should be left in design docs for larger projects. > > > -- Ryan Blue Software Engineer Netflix
