Roadmap for 2024

[jpkrohling]

On the joint TC/GC call from 11 Jan 2024, we discussed our wishlist for 2024. We have items that we are confident we can deliver by the end of the year and a list of items we'd like to have more people help us with this year.

Each item has at least one sponsor, who'd be responsible for:

• ensuring the relevant parties are aware of the goals
• keeping track of the progress
• building bridges by connecting the people and SIGs to solve a specific problem
• helping remove roadblocks
• reporting regularly to the TC/GC (once a quarter was suggested during the call)

We'll use the regular Project Management framework for this: https://github.com/open-telemetry/community/blob/main/project-management.md

This ticket is to track the work in documenting the roadmap we discussed, ensuring that every item has a project in our board and that we have a roadmap communicated to our community.

Here's the list of items we are confident we can complete by the end of the calendar year:

• [x] #1858
• [ ] #1859
• [ ] #1860
• [x] #1875
• [x] #1861
• [ ] #1862
• [x] #1863
• [x] #1864
• [ ] #1865
• [ ] #1866

Once that is done, we'll need to:

• [ ] #1870
• [ ] #1871

Here's the list of items we'd love to get done by the end of the year and would appreciate more volunteers from the community to help us get there:

• [x] #1867
• [x] #1868
• [x] #1869

[tigrannajaryan]

Are we missing profiling? The Profiling WG is actively working on it. I don't know if they will complete it in 2024, but it is certainly work in progress.

@jsuereth and I are the sponsors of the WG.

[carlosalberto]

We are missing the Messaging SIG, which is currently incorporating the latest OTEP into the Spec, and we definitely want to have our "1.0" this year, with myself being the sponsor.

[jpkrohling]

Profiling: I'd rather surprise people positively by delivering more than expected than disappoint people for not completing what we promised. If we are confident we can finish it this year, I'll add it to the tracker. Otherwise, we can still mention in the blog post that we will be working on that without setting expectations. If what we are missing is engineering help, we can also mention that in the blog post, along with FaaS and Client Instrumentation.

Messaging: I think messaging was mentioned during the call, and I'm fine adding it under semantic conventions.

[jpkrohling]

"Semantic Conventions - Messaging" item created and assigned to @carlosalberto

[tigrannajaryan]

Profiling: I'd rather surprise people positively by delivering more than expected than disappoint people for not completing what we promised. If we are confident we can finish it this year, I'll add it to the tracker. Otherwise, we can still mention in the blog post that we will be working on that without setting expectations. If what we are missing is engineering help, we can also mention that in the blog post, along with FaaS and Client Instrumentation.

Profiling is still in early stages, hard to be confident about deliverables. It seems sufficiently staffed at the moment. However, it won't hurt mentioning that it is an active project.

[tedsuo]

@jpkrohling point of process: this approach of creating an issue per item is creating a large number of issues which is pushing the rest of the community issues off of the first and second pages of the issue backlog. Given that we are tracking these on the project board, do we need all of these individual issues? They are basically empty.

[jpkrohling]

do we need all of these individual issues?

I just learned (from you, thanks!) that we don't need issues to track work on project boards. As such, we don't need individual issues.