Discussion/input/suggestions on how to work on this repo

[timea-solid]

On this ticket we want to collect ideas sparked in conversations or implementations... feel free to add yours.
This spec is for now only documenting the 'as-is', however we should not forget 'might-become' ideas too.

This discussion is inviting to debate the ways we are working on this repo. All conclusions will be documented at the end on the README.

[woutermont]

@timea-solid, just wondering: why are these ideas not in separate issues? Or in discussions, which by default come with an 'idea' category?

[timea-solid]

Ok, I have to stop the discussion right here @jeff-zucker and @woutermont.
Since this repo does not 'yet' have a discussion feature I wanted to make sure we do not forget about these ideas.
Also, to answer the previous question: with the clear structure above-> I wanted to avoid ANY discussion on these future ideas because the priority right now is to write the what-is of the Type Indexes.
I personally believe we should (nor do I have time) digest and get into debates on what there should be in the future, at this point.
That being said: I cannot stop people who do want to debate future ideas and specs. These debates can be used later, on the next version of this documentation -> hence -> feel free to open issues and discuss away (label as discussion and future iteration please).
Of course, if the discussion is on current matters of Type Indexes and not future ideas then we will need a collaborative and friendly discussion preferably in meetings.

[jeff-zucker]

Agree, I understood this as a place to jot down thoughts for future exploration, not to put additional tasks on the current draft.

[woutermont]

[W]ith the clear structure above-> I wanted to avoid ANY discussion on these future ideas because the priority right now is to write the what-is of the Type Indexes.

That's what I thought, which is why I asked for separate issues/discussions instead of taking over this one 🙂

I personally believe we should (nor do I have time) to digest and get into debates on what there should be in the future, at this point.

I think we should, though, since that's what's going on: people in the ecosystem are thinking and talking about the best way to do data discovery.

These debates can be used later, on the next version of this documentation [...] label as discussion and `future iteration'

Do you characterise this proposal as a documentation of the current use of type indexes? If so, why does it contain normative text? If not, why would well-argumented proposals not be considered for inclusion in the current version?

---

@jeff-zucker, without in any way devaluing the content of your specific comments, could you maybe hide them, in order to retake them in specific issues/discussions?

[timea-solid]

I hear both inputs. Thank you.

To try to have a structured discussion with follow-up actions:

• I changed this ticket into a discussion on how to work on this repo;
• there is now an overview of idea collections here;
• feel free to open up a discussion on your ideas as is this and label it with discussionand future idea so the next editors can start from there for next version.

Do you characterise this proposal as a documentation of the current use of type indexes? If so, why does it contain normative text? If not, why would well-argumented proposals not be considered for inclusion in the current version?

@woutermont please open a separate discussion ticket for this additional topic.

I asked Jeff to create separate discussion tickets for his comments.

[woutermont]

Sorry @timea-solid, couldn't help but react to @jeff-zucker. I've hidden my comment as off-topic. @jeff-zucker, if you want to react to it, maybe you better do so in a new issue or in Gitter.

The one constructive part of it was: my first suggestion for easier conversations would be to open up the GitHub Discussions tab, if that is possible.

[jeff-zucker]

Yes, I likewise hidden everything of mine that was a comment on another suggestion because this issue is for listing issues, not discussing them,