Owen has recently submitted several PDF design documents, e.g.:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-6255
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-7150

I feel PDF discourages collaboration.  Either plain text or HTML would
permit folks to more easily provide feedback, either as patches or as
alternate drafts.  Some projects use their wikis to collaboratively
evolve designs, so everyone can see the document evolve from the start.
 Some projects use the dev mailing list directly for design.  Any of
these would be preferable to me to PDF, which only the original
submitter can easily edit.

What do others think?

Thanks,

Doug

On Feb 18, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:

> I feel PDF discourages collaboration.  Either plain text or HTML would
> permit folks to more easily provide feedback, either as patches or as
> alternate drafts.

Ok, I've upload the latex files.

-- Owen

I am unsure why this is being discussed on general. I havent seen any
contributor to ignore request for source of the design document. If
someone wants to edit or submit a new one, just commenting on the jira
and asking for it should be enough. no?

thanks
mahadev

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Owen O'Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
>
>> I feel PDF discourages collaboration.  Either plain text or HTML would
>> permit folks to more easily provide feedback, either as patches or as
>> alternate drafts.
>
> Ok, I've upload the latex files.
>
> -- Owen
>

Last time I checked, ctrl-c ctrl-v works just fine with PDF documents too...

Thanks,

Todd

On Feb 18, 2011, at 11:19 PM, "Mahadev Konar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I am unsure why this is being discussed on general. I havent seen any
> contributor to ignore request for source of the design document. If
> someone wants to edit or submit a new one, just commenting on the jira
> and asking for it should be enough. no?
>
> thanks
> mahadev
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Owen O'Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 18, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
>>
>>> I feel PDF discourages collaboration.  Either plain text or HTML would
>>> permit folks to more easily provide feedback, either as patches or as
>>> alternate drafts.
>>
>> Ok, I've upload the latex files.
>>
>> -- Owen
>>

On 02/18/2011 09:12 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> Ok, I've upload the latex files.

Thanks, Owen!

Doug

On 02/18/2011 09:48 AM, Mahadev Konar wrote:
> I am unsure why this is being discussed on general.

I feel this is an issue of general interest and wanted to find out how
others felt about it, not just those following those two particular
issues.  Over the years, on several projects, I've expressed my
preference that project documents be posted in open, editable formats.
I don't recall this being discussed on Hadoop, but, if it has, it's been
a while and seems to have been forgotten, so I thought I'd raise it as
an issue of general policy so that we can all come to some agreement on
this.

Doug

FYI, Owen's design doc for HADOOP-6255 is also available in xml format in the proposed patch.  I think as long as there is a mean to edit/revise the design doc, it should be fine right?

Regards,
Eric

On 2/18/11 10:39 AM, "Doug Cutting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 02/18/2011 09:48 AM, Mahadev Konar wrote:
> I am unsure why this is being discussed on general.

I feel this is an issue of general interest and wanted to find out how
others felt about it, not just those following those two particular
issues.  Over the years, on several projects, I've expressed my
preference that project documents be posted in open, editable formats.
I don't recall this being discussed on Hadoop, but, if it has, it's been
a while and seems to have been forgotten, so I thought I'd raise it as
an issue of general policy so that we can all come to some agreement on
this.

Doug

On 02/18/2011 11:09 AM, Eric Yang wrote:
> FYI, Owen's design doc for HADOOP-6255 is also available in xml
> format in the proposed patch.  I think as long as there is a mean to
> edit/revise the design doc, it should be fine right?

Yes, that looks great to me.  I am just proposing that, when a design is
first presented as a proposal intended for collaborative feedback prior
to implementation that it be provided in a format that's easy for all to
modify.  Does that seem unreasonable?

Doug

I would request that a pdf version be provided too (along with the other
editable formats), it just makes it easier for me to read it without much
effort. It helps me keep up with new designs that are being proposed, even
though I am not competent enough to comment/collaborate on those designs.

thanks,
dhruba

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 02/18/2011 11:09 AM, Eric Yang wrote:
> > FYI, Owen's design doc for HADOOP-6255 is also available in xml
> > format in the proposed patch.  I think as long as there is a mean to
> > edit/revise the design doc, it should be fine right?
>
> Yes, that looks great to me.  I am just proposing that, when a design is
> first presented as a proposal intended for collaborative feedback prior
> to implementation that it be provided in a format that's easy for all to
> modify.  Does that seem unreasonable?
>
> Doug
>

--
Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba

The editable proposal is good advice.  It would be nice to present both
editable version and read-only version to track the history of the proposal.
If it comes down to streamline efficiency, having editable proposal is
preferred.  Hence, I will use editable document next time.

Regards,
Eric

On 2/18/11 11:50 AM, "Doug Cutting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 02/18/2011 11:09 AM, Eric Yang wrote:
>> FYI, Owen's design doc for HADOOP-6255 is also available in xml
>> format in the proposed patch.  I think as long as there is a mean to
>> edit/revise the design doc, it should be fine right?
>
> Yes, that looks great to me.  I am just proposing that, when a design is
> first presented as a proposal intended for collaborative feedback prior
> to implementation that it be provided in a format that's easy for all to
> modify.  Does that seem unreasonable?
>
> Doug
>