> The 'Purpose' section has
> been updated to meet your input around the flexibility of participation
> (and process). I think it is what you are after, but ofc I could be
> wrong (or it doesn't go far enough?). Feel free to edit the doc as well.
The "Cassandra Enhancement Proposal" document
> 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.
Benedict, could you check the document now. The 'Purpose' section has been
updated to meet your input around
All too often, a work-invalidating insight hits late in a cycle while
people are talking about something and significant work has been done on
the invalidated proposal. A CEP up front with engagement from a bunch of
parties may very well help surface those design implications sooner, but we
also ha
We have to be very careful here in my opinion. While the process may provide
some moral authority, particularly on matters of taste or opinion, we cannot
mandate participation, else accept the decisions that arise. People are
legitimately busy, and have to steal their spare time to participate
Another thing which it should solve is someone proposing an alternate very
late into development which could be provided sooner. If someone has a good
feedback which could not have been given at the time of CEP then that is
good. We don't want situations where contributors have done the CEP and
the
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
> 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 an
I think we need to have a meta discussion about the goal for introducing a new
process. Your email mentions two reasons that I can see:
1) Clarity of the outcome? "For example they have been written up in jira
tickets, in a way that becomes quite difficult to unpack afterwards the
difference
With the feature freeze for 4.0 getting a little closer to its end, and after
Scott's NGCC presentation on how Cassandra can be better at moving forward, I'm
keen to bring up the idea of a "Cassandra Enhancement Proposal" (CEP) process.
Big changes in the past have not always been as transparent
