bothra90

Is this competing with Nessie (https://projectnessie.org/)?

That would be awesome!

Exciting work! Some questions:

1. Any plans on open-sourcing this?

2. Why not have a tiered architecture that can provide lower latency? p99 of 1s can be too high for some use-cases.

3. Related to 2, how does WarpStream compare to tiered storage in Pulsar?

[Edit 1] Added (3)

Can you share some insight on how/if Kagi is different from Neeva[1] in its approach?

[1] https://neeva.com/

By an independent board do you mean that the H1B holder cannot themselves be on the company's board? Re: 50% ownership, is 50-50 split OK, or does it have to be less than 50?

Is this solving similar problems as Ray [1]?

[1] https://www.ray.io/

How does this compare with https://github.com/linkedin/greykite?

I really wish more design docs / project reports looked like this article - talking about the whys, goals / non-goals, options considered, prototypes built, challenges, and solutions, learnings and next steps. Kudos!

Although GitHub supports the commit-based review the author is arguing for (they found it too after writing the article), I don't think it completely solves the problem - we need to be able review, test, and merge each commit individually without needing to merge the entire PR. Since GitHub doesn't have first-class support for dependent PRs, we are still "stuck" with a broken workflow. An example workaround: https://wchargin.github.io/posts/managing-dependent-pull-req.... Are there any better solutions?

I've wanted to write this blog for around 2 years now, but was only now able to get it out. Feedback is welcome.

The fact that PMs are empowered to be "CEOs" of their product probably doesn't help. In my mind, transparency in the 2-way communication between PMs and engineers is key. Engineers need to be motivated by the "why", but PMs also need to understand why an engineer might want to, to quote from the article, "spend months refactoring an app to make it “right”".