[DISCUSS] Splitting User support mailing list

[roman]

Hi everyone,

I'd like to propose to extract several "sub-lists" from our user mailing
list ([hidden email]).

For example,
- [hidden email] (Python)
- [hidden email] (StateFun)
- [hidden email]. (SQL/TableAPI)
And [hidden email] will remain the main or "default" list.

That would improve the quality and speed of the answers and allow
developers to concentrate on the relevant topics.

At the downside, this would lessen the exposure to the various Flink areas
for lists maintainers.

What do you think?

Regards,
Roman

Hi Roman,

This is a very good idea. I will look forward to the official setting up "sub-lists" as soon as possible and sharing development experience and problems with friends in a certain field.

Regards,
yue



[hidden email]
 
From: Roman Khachatryan
Date: 2021-03-01 16:48
To: dev
Subject: [DISCUSS] Splitting User support mailing list
Hi everyone,
 
I'd like to propose to extract several "sub-lists" from our user mailing
list ([hidden email]).
 
For example,
- [hidden email] (Python)
- [hidden email] (StateFun)
- [hidden email]. (SQL/TableAPI)
And [hidden email] will remain the main or "default" list.
 
That would improve the quality and speed of the answers and allow
developers to concentrate on the relevant topics.
 
At the downside, this would lessen the exposure to the various Flink areas
for lists maintainers.
 
What do you think?
 
Regards,
Roman

[Konstantin Knauf-3]

Hi Roman,

I slightly +1 for a list dedicated to Statefun users, but -1 for splitting
up the rest. I think there are still a lot of crosscutting concerns between
Python, DataStream, Table API and SQL where users of another API can also
help out, too. It also requires users to think about which lists to
subscribe/write to, instead of simply subscribing to one list.

Why do you think the quality and speed of answers would improve with
dedicated lists?

Best,

Konstantin





On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 10:09 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Roman,
>
> This is a very good idea. I will look forward to the official setting up
> "sub-lists" as soon as possible and sharing development experience and
> problems with friends in a certain field.
>
> Regards,
> yue
>
>
>
> [hidden email]
>
> From: Roman Khachatryan
> Date: 2021-03-01 16:48
> To: dev
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Splitting User support mailing list
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to propose to extract several "sub-lists" from our user mailing
> list ([hidden email]).
>
> For example,
> - [hidden email] (Python)
> - [hidden email] (StateFun)
> - [hidden email]. (SQL/TableAPI)
> And [hidden email] will remain the main or "default" list.
>
> That would improve the quality and speed of the answers and allow
> developers to concentrate on the relevant topics.
>
> At the downside, this would lessen the exposure to the various Flink areas
> for lists maintainers.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Regards,
> Roman
>

--

Konstantin Knauf | Head of Product

[phone]


Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/>


--

Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache Flink
Conference

Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time

--

Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany

--
Ververica GmbH
Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
Managing Directors: Yip Park Tung Jason, Jinwei (Kevin) Zhang, Karl Anton
Wehner

[Jark Wu-2]

I also have some concerns about splitting python and sql.
Because I have seen some SQL questions users reported but is related to
deployment or state backend.

Best,
Jark

On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 17:15, Konstantin Knauf <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Roman,
>
> I slightly +1 for a list dedicated to Statefun users, but -1 for splitting
> up the rest. I think there are still a lot of crosscutting concerns between
> Python, DataStream, Table API and SQL where users of another API can also
> help out, too. It also requires users to think about which lists to
> subscribe/write to, instead of simply subscribing to one list.
>
> Why do you think the quality and speed of answers would improve with
> dedicated lists?
>
> Best,
>
> Konstantin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 10:09 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Roman,
> >
> > This is a very good idea. I will look forward to the official setting up
> > "sub-lists" as soon as possible and sharing development experience and
> > problems with friends in a certain field.
> >
> > Regards,
> > yue
> >
> >
> >
> > [hidden email]
> >
> > From: Roman Khachatryan
> > Date: 2021-03-01 16:48
> > To: dev
> > Subject: [DISCUSS] Splitting User support mailing list
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'd like to propose to extract several "sub-lists" from our user mailing
> > list ([hidden email]).
> >
> > For example,
> > - [hidden email] (Python)
> > - [hidden email] (StateFun)
> > - [hidden email]. (SQL/TableAPI)
> > And [hidden email] will remain the main or "default" list.
> >
> > That would improve the quality and speed of the answers and allow
> > developers to concentrate on the relevant topics.
> >
> > At the downside, this would lessen the exposure to the various Flink
> areas
> > for lists maintainers.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Roman
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Konstantin Knauf | Head of Product
>
> [phone]
>
>
> Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/>
>
>
> --
>
> Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache Flink
> Conference
>
> Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time
>
> --
>
> Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany
>
> --
> Ververica GmbH
> Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
> Managing Directors: Yip Park Tung Jason, Jinwei (Kevin) Zhang, Karl Anton
> Wehner
>

[Timo Walther-2]

I would vote -0 here.

I fear that we are creating potential silos where a team doesn't know
what is going on in the other teams.

Regards,
Timo


On 01.03.21 10:47, Jark Wu wrote:

> I also have some concerns about splitting python and sql.
> Because I have seen some SQL questions users reported but is related to
> deployment or state backend.
>
> Best,
> Jark
>
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 17:15, Konstantin Knauf <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Roman,
>>
>> I slightly +1 for a list dedicated to Statefun users, but -1 for splitting
>> up the rest. I think there are still a lot of crosscutting concerns between
>> Python, DataStream, Table API and SQL where users of another API can also
>> help out, too. It also requires users to think about which lists to
>> subscribe/write to, instead of simply subscribing to one list.
>>
>> Why do you think the quality and speed of answers would improve with
>> dedicated lists?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Konstantin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 10:09 AM [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Roman,
>>>
>>> This is a very good idea. I will look forward to the official setting up
>>> "sub-lists" as soon as possible and sharing development experience and
>>> problems with friends in a certain field.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> yue
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [hidden email]
>>>
>>> From: Roman Khachatryan
>>> Date: 2021-03-01 16:48
>>> To: dev
>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Splitting User support mailing list
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose to extract several "sub-lists" from our user mailing
>>> list ([hidden email]).
>>>
>>> For example,
>>> - [hidden email] (Python)
>>> - [hidden email] (StateFun)
>>> - [hidden email]. (SQL/TableAPI)
>>> And [hidden email] will remain the main or "default" list.
>>>
>>> That would improve the quality and speed of the answers and allow
>>> developers to concentrate on the relevant topics.
>>>
>>> At the downside, this would lessen the exposure to the various Flink
>> areas
>>> for lists maintainers.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Roman
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Konstantin Knauf | Head of Product
>>
>> [phone]
>>
>>
>> Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache Flink
>> Conference
>>
>> Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany
>>
>> --
>> Ververica GmbH
>> Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
>> Managing Directors: Yip Park Tung Jason, Jinwei (Kevin) Zhang, Karl Anton
>> Wehner
>>
>

[dwysakowicz]

As others I'd also rather be -1 on splitting (even splitting out the
statefun).

Personally I don't find it problematic. I often find the subjects quite
descriptive, they often include tags or mention which API they refer to.
If they don't I am quite sure having separate sub-lists would not help
in those cases anyway. I agree with the others that splitting the list
would make the cross communication harder and create knowledge silos.

It would also incur more requirements on users which already often find
ML counter intuitive (See e.g. the discussion about adding a Flink slack)

Best,

Dawid

On 01/03/2021 11:20, Timo Walther wrote:

> I would vote -0 here.
>
> I fear that we are creating potential silos where a team doesn't know
> what is going on in the other teams.
>
> Regards,
> Timo
>
>
> On 01.03.21 10:47, Jark Wu wrote:
>> I also have some concerns about splitting python and sql.
>> Because I have seen some SQL questions users reported but is related to
>> deployment or state backend.
>>
>> Best,
>> Jark
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 17:15, Konstantin Knauf <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Roman,
>>>
>>> I slightly +1 for a list dedicated to Statefun users, but -1 for
>>> splitting
>>> up the rest. I think there are still a lot of crosscutting concerns
>>> between
>>> Python, DataStream, Table API and SQL where users of another API can
>>> also
>>> help out, too. It also requires users to think about which lists to
>>> subscribe/write to, instead of simply subscribing to one list.
>>>
>>> Why do you think the quality and speed of answers would improve with
>>> dedicated lists?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Konstantin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 10:09 AM [hidden email]
>>> <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Roman,
>>>>
>>>> This is a very good idea. I will look forward to the official
>>>> setting up
>>>> "sub-lists" as soon as possible and sharing development experience and
>>>> problems with friends in a certain field.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> yue
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>> From: Roman Khachatryan
>>>> Date: 2021-03-01 16:48
>>>> To: dev
>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Splitting User support mailing list
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to propose to extract several "sub-lists" from our user
>>>> mailing
>>>> list ([hidden email]).
>>>>
>>>> For example,
>>>> - [hidden email] (Python)
>>>> - [hidden email] (StateFun)
>>>> - [hidden email]. (SQL/TableAPI)
>>>> And [hidden email] will remain the main or "default" list.
>>>>
>>>> That would improve the quality and speed of the answers and allow
>>>> developers to concentrate on the relevant topics.
>>>>
>>>> At the downside, this would lessen the exposure to the various Flink
>>> areas
>>>> for lists maintainers.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Roman
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Konstantin Knauf | Head of Product
>>>
>>> [phone]
>>>
>>>
>>> Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache Flink
>>> Conference
>>>
>>> Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ververica GmbH
>>> Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
>>> Managing Directors: Yip Park Tung Jason, Jinwei (Kevin) Zhang, Karl
>>> Anton
>>> Wehner
>>>
>>
>

[roman]

Thanks for your replies!

@Konstantin Knauf <[hidden email]>
> Why do you think the quality and speed of answers would improve with
dedicated lists?
If there is a question on something that you are not an expert in; then you
either have to
- pull in someone who is more experienced in it (more time on hops, esp. if
the pulled in person isn't available)
- or learn it and answer yourself (more time on learning and still higher
chance of missing something)

@Timo Walther <[hidden email]> and @Dawid Wysakowicz
<[hidden email]>
> I fear that we are creating potential silos where a team doesn't know
> what is going on in the other teams.
I think some specialization is unavoidable in a big project like Flink or
Linux (which also has separate lists).
And user support ML doesn't seem to me the right tool to deal with it.

@Dawid Wysakowicz <[hidden email]>
> Personally I don't find it problematic. I often find the subjects quite
> descriptive, they often include tags or mention which API they refer to.
Yes, but that only means that the sender would already know the "right"
list.

@Konstantin Knauf <[hidden email]> and @[hidden email] <[hidden email]>

I agree that there are crosscutting areas; and also a chance of sending a
message to the wrong topic.
But splitting doesn't change anything here: if a SQL question for example
is asked on StateFun ML then
we still have the options above (plus an option to redirect user to the
other list).

Regards,
Roman


On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 11:30 AM Dawid Wysakowicz <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> As others I'd also rather be -1 on splitting (even splitting out the
> statefun).
>
> Personally I don't find it problematic. I often find the subjects quite
> descriptive, they often include tags or mention which API they refer to.
> If they don't I am quite sure having separate sub-lists would not help
> in those cases anyway. I agree with the others that splitting the list
> would make the cross communication harder and create knowledge silos.
>
> It would also incur more requirements on users which already often find
> ML counter intuitive (See e.g. the discussion about adding a Flink slack)
>
> Best,
>
> Dawid
>
> On 01/03/2021 11:20, Timo Walther wrote:
> > I would vote -0 here.
> >
> > I fear that we are creating potential silos where a team doesn't know
> > what is going on in the other teams.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Timo
> >
> >
> > On 01.03.21 10:47, Jark Wu wrote:
> >> I also have some concerns about splitting python and sql.
> >> Because I have seen some SQL questions users reported but is related to
> >> deployment or state backend.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Jark
> >>
> >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 17:15, Konstantin Knauf <[hidden email]
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Roman,
> >>>
> >>> I slightly +1 for a list dedicated to Statefun users, but -1 for
> >>> splitting
> >>> up the rest. I think there are still a lot of crosscutting concerns
> >>> between
> >>> Python, DataStream, Table API and SQL where users of another API can
> >>> also
> >>> help out, too. It also requires users to think about which lists to
> >>> subscribe/write to, instead of simply subscribing to one list.
> >>>
> >>> Why do you think the quality and speed of answers would improve with
> >>> dedicated lists?
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Konstantin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 10:09 AM [hidden email]
> >>> <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Roman,
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a very good idea. I will look forward to the official
> >>>> setting up
> >>>> "sub-lists" as soon as possible and sharing development experience and
> >>>> problems with friends in a certain field.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> yue
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Roman Khachatryan
> >>>> Date: 2021-03-01 16:48
> >>>> To: dev
> >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Splitting User support mailing list
> >>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to propose to extract several "sub-lists" from our user
> >>>> mailing
> >>>> list ([hidden email]).
> >>>>
> >>>> For example,
> >>>> - [hidden email] (Python)
> >>>> - [hidden email] (StateFun)
> >>>> - [hidden email]. (SQL/TableAPI)
> >>>> And [hidden email] will remain the main or "default" list.
> >>>>
> >>>> That would improve the quality and speed of the answers and allow
> >>>> developers to concentrate on the relevant topics.
> >>>>
> >>>> At the downside, this would lessen the exposure to the various Flink
> >>> areas
> >>>> for lists maintainers.
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think?
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Roman
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Konstantin Knauf | Head of Product
> >>>
> >>> [phone]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache Flink
> >>> Conference
> >>>
> >>> Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ververica GmbH
> >>> Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
> >>> Managing Directors: Yip Park Tung Jason, Jinwei (Kevin) Zhang, Karl
> >>> Anton
> >>> Wehner
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>

[Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai]

Hi,

I feel that the issues Roman has pointed out so far, is less a problem of
all topics (SQL / PyFlink / StateFun) being on the same list, and more a
problem that we are missing dedicated groups of “user support shepherds”
who are specifically responsible for individual topics on a day-to-day
basis.

In the distant past, we used to assign shepherds for individual components
in Flink.
Perhaps something similar to that, but specifically for daily user mailing
lists support, is already sufficient to solve the mentioned problems.
So essentially, instead of splitting into “sub-lists”, we should simply
have dedicated “sub-topic maintainers” assigned.

For example, for myself, I set a filter on my email client to look
specifically for “Stateful Functions / StateFun” mentions, and tag it
appropriately.
This already allows me to concentrate on StateFun questions, without losing
the exposure to other things happening in the wider Flink project.
As far as I can tell, except for some more tricky questions, the turnaround
time for StateFun user questions has been ok so far.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Gordon

On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 6:56 PM Roman Khachatryan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks for your replies!
>
> @Konstantin Knauf <[hidden email]>
> > Why do you think the quality and speed of answers would improve with
> dedicated lists?
> If there is a question on something that you are not an expert in; then you
> either have to
> - pull in someone who is more experienced in it (more time on hops, esp. if
> the pulled in person isn't available)
> - or learn it and answer yourself (more time on learning and still higher
> chance of missing something)
>
> @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> and @Dawid Wysakowicz
> <[hidden email]>
> > I fear that we are creating potential silos where a team doesn't know
> > what is going on in the other teams.
> I think some specialization is unavoidable in a big project like Flink or
> Linux (which also has separate lists).
> And user support ML doesn't seem to me the right tool to deal with it.
>
> @Dawid Wysakowicz <[hidden email]>
> > Personally I don't find it problematic. I often find the subjects quite
> > descriptive, they often include tags or mention which API they refer to.
> Yes, but that only means that the sender would already know the "right"
> list.
>
> @Konstantin Knauf <[hidden email]> and @[hidden email] <
> [hidden email]>
>
> I agree that there are crosscutting areas; and also a chance of sending a
> message to the wrong topic.
> But splitting doesn't change anything here: if a SQL question for example
> is asked on StateFun ML then
> we still have the options above (plus an option to redirect user to the
> other list).
>
> Regards,
> Roman
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 11:30 AM Dawid Wysakowicz <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > As others I'd also rather be -1 on splitting (even splitting out the
> > statefun).
> >
> > Personally I don't find it problematic. I often find the subjects quite
> > descriptive, they often include tags or mention which API they refer to.
> > If they don't I am quite sure having separate sub-lists would not help
> > in those cases anyway. I agree with the others that splitting the list
> > would make the cross communication harder and create knowledge silos.
> >
> > It would also incur more requirements on users which already often find
> > ML counter intuitive (See e.g. the discussion about adding a Flink slack)
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Dawid
> >
> > On 01/03/2021 11:20, Timo Walther wrote:
> > > I would vote -0 here.
> > >
> > > I fear that we are creating potential silos where a team doesn't know
> > > what is going on in the other teams.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Timo
> > >
> > >
> > > On 01.03.21 10:47, Jark Wu wrote:
> > >> I also have some concerns about splitting python and sql.
> > >> Because I have seen some SQL questions users reported but is related
> to
> > >> deployment or state backend.
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Jark
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 17:15, Konstantin Knauf <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Roman,
> > >>>
> > >>> I slightly +1 for a list dedicated to Statefun users, but -1 for
> > >>> splitting
> > >>> up the rest. I think there are still a lot of crosscutting concerns
> > >>> between
> > >>> Python, DataStream, Table API and SQL where users of another API can
> > >>> also
> > >>> help out, too. It also requires users to think about which lists to
> > >>> subscribe/write to, instead of simply subscribing to one list.
> > >>>
> > >>> Why do you think the quality and speed of answers would improve with
> > >>> dedicated lists?
> > >>>
> > >>> Best,
> > >>>
> > >>> Konstantin
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 10:09 AM [hidden email]
> > >>> <[hidden email]>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi Roman,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This is a very good idea. I will look forward to the official
> > >>>> setting up
> > >>>> "sub-lists" as soon as possible and sharing development experience
> and
> > >>>> problems with friends in a certain field.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regards,
> > >>>> yue
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Roman Khachatryan
> > >>>> Date: 2021-03-01 16:48
> > >>>> To: dev
> > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Splitting User support mailing list
> > >>>> Hi everyone,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'd like to propose to extract several "sub-lists" from our user
> > >>>> mailing
> > >>>> list ([hidden email]).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> For example,
> > >>>> - [hidden email] (Python)
> > >>>> - [hidden email] (StateFun)
> > >>>> - [hidden email]. (SQL/TableAPI)
> > >>>> And [hidden email] will remain the main or "default" list.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> That would improve the quality and speed of the answers and allow
> > >>>> developers to concentrate on the relevant topics.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> At the downside, this would lessen the exposure to the various Flink
> > >>> areas
> > >>>> for lists maintainers.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What do you think?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regards,
> > >>>> Roman
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Konstantin Knauf | Head of Product
> > >>>
> > >>> [phone]
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache Flink
> > >>> Conference
> > >>>
> > >>> Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Ververica GmbH
> > >>> Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
> > >>> Managing Directors: Yip Park Tung Jason, Jinwei (Kevin) Zhang, Karl
> > >>> Anton
> > >>> Wehner
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>

[Igal Shilman]

Hi Roman,

Regarding StateFun having a separate mailing list, I'm ok with it going
either-way, however when we first contributed
the project there was already a discussion about having a separate mailing
list for StateFun [1] and the feedback was
having StateFun be part of the regular mailing list.


[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@.../msg31464.html

On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 12:25 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I feel that the issues Roman has pointed out so far, is less a problem of
> all topics (SQL / PyFlink / StateFun) being on the same list, and more a
> problem that we are missing dedicated groups of “user support shepherds”
> who are specifically responsible for individual topics on a day-to-day
> basis.
>
> In the distant past, we used to assign shepherds for individual components
> in Flink.
> Perhaps something similar to that, but specifically for daily user mailing
> lists support, is already sufficient to solve the mentioned problems.
> So essentially, instead of splitting into “sub-lists”, we should simply
> have dedicated “sub-topic maintainers” assigned.
>
> For example, for myself, I set a filter on my email client to look
> specifically for “Stateful Functions / StateFun” mentions, and tag it
> appropriately.
> This already allows me to concentrate on StateFun questions, without losing
> the exposure to other things happening in the wider Flink project.
> As far as I can tell, except for some more tricky questions, the turnaround
> time for StateFun user questions has been ok so far.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Gordon
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 6:56 PM Roman Khachatryan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your replies!
> >
> > @Konstantin Knauf <[hidden email]>
> > > Why do you think the quality and speed of answers would improve with
> > dedicated lists?
> > If there is a question on something that you are not an expert in; then
> you
> > either have to
> > - pull in someone who is more experienced in it (more time on hops, esp.
> if
> > the pulled in person isn't available)
> > - or learn it and answer yourself (more time on learning and still higher
> > chance of missing something)
> >
> > @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> and @Dawid Wysakowicz
> > <[hidden email]>
> > > I fear that we are creating potential silos where a team doesn't know
> > > what is going on in the other teams.
> > I think some specialization is unavoidable in a big project like Flink or
> > Linux (which also has separate lists).
> > And user support ML doesn't seem to me the right tool to deal with it.
> >
> > @Dawid Wysakowicz <[hidden email]>
> > > Personally I don't find it problematic. I often find the subjects quite
> > > descriptive, they often include tags or mention which API they refer
> to.
> > Yes, but that only means that the sender would already know the "right"
> > list.
> >
> > @Konstantin Knauf <[hidden email]> and @[hidden email] <
> > [hidden email]>
> >
> > I agree that there are crosscutting areas; and also a chance of sending a
> > message to the wrong topic.
> > But splitting doesn't change anything here: if a SQL question for example
> > is asked on StateFun ML then
> > we still have the options above (plus an option to redirect user to the
> > other list).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Roman
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 11:30 AM Dawid Wysakowicz <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > As others I'd also rather be -1 on splitting (even splitting out the
> > > statefun).
> > >
> > > Personally I don't find it problematic. I often find the subjects quite
> > > descriptive, they often include tags or mention which API they refer
> to.
> > > If they don't I am quite sure having separate sub-lists would not help
> > > in those cases anyway. I agree with the others that splitting the list
> > > would make the cross communication harder and create knowledge silos.
> > >
> > > It would also incur more requirements on users which already often find
> > > ML counter intuitive (See e.g. the discussion about adding a Flink
> slack)
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Dawid
> > >
> > > On 01/03/2021 11:20, Timo Walther wrote:
> > > > I would vote -0 here.
> > > >
> > > > I fear that we are creating potential silos where a team doesn't know
> > > > what is going on in the other teams.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Timo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 01.03.21 10:47, Jark Wu wrote:
> > > >> I also have some concerns about splitting python and sql.
> > > >> Because I have seen some SQL questions users reported but is related
> > to
> > > >> deployment or state backend.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best,
> > > >> Jark
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 17:15, Konstantin Knauf <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi Roman,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I slightly +1 for a list dedicated to Statefun users, but -1 for
> > > >>> splitting
> > > >>> up the rest. I think there are still a lot of crosscutting concerns
> > > >>> between
> > > >>> Python, DataStream, Table API and SQL where users of another API
> can
> > > >>> also
> > > >>> help out, too. It also requires users to think about which lists to
> > > >>> subscribe/write to, instead of simply subscribing to one list.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Why do you think the quality and speed of answers would improve
> with
> > > >>> dedicated lists?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Best,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Konstantin
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 10:09 AM [hidden email]
> > > >>> <[hidden email]>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Hi Roman,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> This is a very good idea. I will look forward to the official
> > > >>>> setting up
> > > >>>> "sub-lists" as soon as possible and sharing development experience
> > and
> > > >>>> problems with friends in a certain field.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Regards,
> > > >>>> yue
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> From: Roman Khachatryan
> > > >>>> Date: 2021-03-01 16:48
> > > >>>> To: dev
> > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Splitting User support mailing list
> > > >>>> Hi everyone,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I'd like to propose to extract several "sub-lists" from our user
> > > >>>> mailing
> > > >>>> list ([hidden email]).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> For example,
> > > >>>> - [hidden email] (Python)
> > > >>>> - [hidden email] (StateFun)
> > > >>>> - [hidden email]. (SQL/TableAPI)
> > > >>>> And [hidden email] will remain the main or "default" list.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> That would improve the quality and speed of the answers and allow
> > > >>>> developers to concentrate on the relevant topics.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> At the downside, this would lessen the exposure to the various
> Flink
> > > >>> areas
> > > >>>> for lists maintainers.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> What do you think?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Regards,
> > > >>>> Roman
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Konstantin Knauf | Head of Product
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [phone]
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache Flink
> > > >>> Conference
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Ververica GmbH
> > > >>> Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
> > > >>> Managing Directors: Yip Park Tung Jason, Jinwei (Kevin) Zhang, Karl
> > > >>> Anton
> > > >>> Wehner
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

[roman]

@[hidden email] <[hidden email]>
> instead of splitting into “sub-lists”, we should simply have dedicated
“sub-topic maintainers” assigned.
I think this could also work, but some mails may fall between the filters.

@[hidden email] <[hidden email]>
I guess the previous decision about StateFun ML was made in a bit different
context: no other sub-lists and no data about the list.

Regards,
Roman


On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 2:59 PM Igal Shilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Roman,
>
> Regarding StateFun having a separate mailing list, I'm ok with it going
> either-way, however when we first contributed
> the project there was already a discussion about having a separate mailing
> list for StateFun [1] and the feedback was
> having StateFun be part of the regular mailing list.
>
>
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@.../msg31464.html
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 12:25 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I feel that the issues Roman has pointed out so far, is less a problem of
>> all topics (SQL / PyFlink / StateFun) being on the same list, and more a
>> problem that we are missing dedicated groups of “user support shepherds”
>> who are specifically responsible for individual topics on a day-to-day
>> basis.
>>
>> In the distant past, we used to assign shepherds for individual components
>> in Flink.
>> Perhaps something similar to that, but specifically for daily user mailing
>> lists support, is already sufficient to solve the mentioned problems.
>> So essentially, instead of splitting into “sub-lists”, we should simply
>> have dedicated “sub-topic maintainers” assigned.
>>
>> For example, for myself, I set a filter on my email client to look
>> specifically for “Stateful Functions / StateFun” mentions, and tag it
>> appropriately.
>> This already allows me to concentrate on StateFun questions, without
>> losing
>> the exposure to other things happening in the wider Flink project.
>> As far as I can tell, except for some more tricky questions, the
>> turnaround
>> time for StateFun user questions has been ok so far.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Gordon
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 6:56 PM Roman Khachatryan <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for your replies!
>> >
>> > @Konstantin Knauf <[hidden email]>
>> > > Why do you think the quality and speed of answers would improve with
>> > dedicated lists?
>> > If there is a question on something that you are not an expert in; then
>> you
>> > either have to
>> > - pull in someone who is more experienced in it (more time on hops,
>> esp. if
>> > the pulled in person isn't available)
>> > - or learn it and answer yourself (more time on learning and still
>> higher
>> > chance of missing something)
>> >
>> > @Timo Walther <[hidden email]> and @Dawid Wysakowicz
>> > <[hidden email]>
>> > > I fear that we are creating potential silos where a team doesn't know
>> > > what is going on in the other teams.
>> > I think some specialization is unavoidable in a big project like Flink
>> or
>> > Linux (which also has separate lists).
>> > And user support ML doesn't seem to me the right tool to deal with it.
>> >
>> > @Dawid Wysakowicz <[hidden email]>
>> > > Personally I don't find it problematic. I often find the subjects
>> quite
>> > > descriptive, they often include tags or mention which API they refer
>> to.
>> > Yes, but that only means that the sender would already know the "right"
>> > list.
>> >
>> > @Konstantin Knauf <[hidden email]> and @[hidden email] <
>> > [hidden email]>
>> >
>> > I agree that there are crosscutting areas; and also a chance of sending
>> a
>> > message to the wrong topic.
>> > But splitting doesn't change anything here: if a SQL question for
>> example
>> > is asked on StateFun ML then
>> > we still have the options above (plus an option to redirect user to the
>> > other list).
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Roman
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 11:30 AM Dawid Wysakowicz <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > As others I'd also rather be -1 on splitting (even splitting out the
>> > > statefun).
>> > >
>> > > Personally I don't find it problematic. I often find the subjects
>> quite
>> > > descriptive, they often include tags or mention which API they refer
>> to.
>> > > If they don't I am quite sure having separate sub-lists would not help
>> > > in those cases anyway. I agree with the others that splitting the list
>> > > would make the cross communication harder and create knowledge silos.
>> > >
>> > > It would also incur more requirements on users which already often
>> find
>> > > ML counter intuitive (See e.g. the discussion about adding a Flink
>> slack)
>> > >
>> > > Best,
>> > >
>> > > Dawid
>> > >
>> > > On 01/03/2021 11:20, Timo Walther wrote:
>> > > > I would vote -0 here.
>> > > >
>> > > > I fear that we are creating potential silos where a team doesn't
>> know
>> > > > what is going on in the other teams.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > > Timo
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On 01.03.21 10:47, Jark Wu wrote:
>> > > >> I also have some concerns about splitting python and sql.
>> > > >> Because I have seen some SQL questions users reported but is
>> related
>> > to
>> > > >> deployment or state backend.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Best,
>> > > >> Jark
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 17:15, Konstantin Knauf <
>> > [hidden email]
>> > > >
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Hi Roman,
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> I slightly +1 for a list dedicated to Statefun users, but -1 for
>> > > >>> splitting
>> > > >>> up the rest. I think there are still a lot of crosscutting
>> concerns
>> > > >>> between
>> > > >>> Python, DataStream, Table API and SQL where users of another API
>> can
>> > > >>> also
>> > > >>> help out, too. It also requires users to think about which lists
>> to
>> > > >>> subscribe/write to, instead of simply subscribing to one list.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Why do you think the quality and speed of answers would improve
>> with
>> > > >>> dedicated lists?
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Best,
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Konstantin
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 10:09 AM [hidden email]
>> > > >>> <[hidden email]>
>> > > >>> wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>> Hi Roman,
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> This is a very good idea. I will look forward to the official
>> > > >>>> setting up
>> > > >>>> "sub-lists" as soon as possible and sharing development
>> experience
>> > and
>> > > >>>> problems with friends in a certain field.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> Regards,
>> > > >>>> yue
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> [hidden email]
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> From: Roman Khachatryan
>> > > >>>> Date: 2021-03-01 16:48
>> > > >>>> To: dev
>> > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Splitting User support mailing list
>> > > >>>> Hi everyone,
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> I'd like to propose to extract several "sub-lists" from our user
>> > > >>>> mailing
>> > > >>>> list ([hidden email]).
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> For example,
>> > > >>>> - [hidden email] (Python)
>> > > >>>> - [hidden email] (StateFun)
>> > > >>>> - [hidden email]. (SQL/TableAPI)
>> > > >>>> And [hidden email] will remain the main or "default"
>> list.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> That would improve the quality and speed of the answers and allow
>> > > >>>> developers to concentrate on the relevant topics.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> At the downside, this would lessen the exposure to the various
>> Flink
>> > > >>> areas
>> > > >>>> for lists maintainers.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> What do you think?
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> Regards,
>> > > >>>> Roman
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> --
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Konstantin Knauf | Head of Product
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> [phone]
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> --
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache
>> Flink
>> > > >>> Conference
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> --
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> --
>> > > >>> Ververica GmbH
>> > > >>> Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
>> > > >>> Managing Directors: Yip Park Tung Jason, Jinwei (Kevin) Zhang,
>> Karl
>> > > >>> Anton
>> > > >>> Wehner
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

[Robert Metzger]

Thanks a lot for bringing up this idea Roman!

After reading the initial proposal, I quite liked the idea, because it
makes our life easier: We can only monitor lists relevant for the topics we
are working on (I have to admit that I usually skip all questions that seem
to be related to SQL or Statefun).
There are a few Apache projects which have followed a similar approach [1],
most notable maybe the Hadoop project, which has a user@, as well as
hdfs-user@, mapreduce-user@, ozone-user@ etc. There, it seems that
sub-projects have separate lists. This would support the idea of splitting
out statefun into a separate list.

But the majority of people who have commented so far seem to have concerns
regarding the proposal, which seem reasonable.
I propose to revisit this proposal at a later point.



[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/

[roman]

Thanks Robert,

That's a good idea, let's revisit it later.

Regards,
Roman


On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 3:40 PM Robert Metzger <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks a lot for bringing up this idea Roman!
>
> After reading the initial proposal, I quite liked the idea, because it
> makes our life easier: We can only monitor lists relevant for the topics we
> are working on (I have to admit that I usually skip all questions that seem
> to be related to SQL or Statefun).
> There are a few Apache projects which have followed a similar approach [1],
> most notable maybe the Hadoop project, which has a user@, as well as
> hdfs-user@, mapreduce-user@, ozone-user@ etc. There, it seems that
> sub-projects have separate lists. This would support the idea of splitting
> out statefun into a separate list.
>
> But the majority of people who have commented so far seem to have concerns
> regarding the proposal, which seem reasonable.
> I propose to revisit this proposal at a later point.
>
>
>
> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/
>

[Henry Saputra]

-1 for splitting user list to areas in Flink.

As Robert and others have chimed in, we could have separate user list for
sub projects in Flink, like statefun

- Henry

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021, 11:27 AM Roman Khachatryan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks Robert,
>
> That's a good idea, let's revisit it later.
>
> Regards,
> Roman
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 3:40 PM Robert Metzger <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks a lot for bringing up this idea Roman!
> >
> > After reading the initial proposal, I quite liked the idea, because it
> > makes our life easier: We can only monitor lists relevant for the topics
> we
> > are working on (I have to admit that I usually skip all questions that
> seem
> > to be related to SQL or Statefun).
> > There are a few Apache projects which have followed a similar approach
> [1],
> > most notable maybe the Hadoop project, which has a user@, as well as
> > hdfs-user@, mapreduce-user@, ozone-user@ etc. There, it seems that
> > sub-projects have separate lists. This would support the idea of
> splitting
> > out statefun into a separate list.
> >
> > But the majority of people who have commented so far seem to have
> concerns
> > regarding the proposal, which seem reasonable.
> > I propose to revisit this proposal at a later point.
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/
> >
>