Hi Zarr Community! 🙋🏻♂️
It’s been a long time since I’ve talked to you, and I think there wouldn’t be a better time to do it, along with the announcement of our newly created community feedback process, which I’ve been working on for quite some time now. It’s been fun and intensive learning since I started working on the ZEPs.
So first, I’ll discuss the motivation and need for a process for the Zarr community. After that, I’ll do a walk-through of different stages during its creation.
But first, I’d like to share my experience working with the Zarr community briefly. June 2022 marks the completion of 5 months of me working with the fantastic humans of the Zarr Steering Council, the Zarr community and the overall open-source space.
These last few months have been full of learning new technical and interpersonal skills, understanding Zarr deeply, making great new friends, meeting and interacting with a diverse and vibrant community, and speaking about Zarr at conferences and local meet-ups. So here’s me talking about Zarr at OGC and PyData Delhi.
Before joining Zarr, I was under the impression that Zarr was a young project which needed someone with experience in handling communities. When I say young I thought the Zarr community was still in the early growth phase. But after a few weeks of joining Zarr, I realised how large, sophisticated and mature the Zarr community is. Handling a large community has its challenges, and I needed to put together the somewhat scattered pieces of the puzzle together to understand the big picture (a.k.a. the community). That helped me better understand the needs and necessary steps to manage the community and ensure the constructive growth of the community.
Out of all the things I’ve done so far, creating ZEP (Zarr Enhancement Proposal) with the community’s help is one of the crucial and somewhat challenging tasks I’ve encountered in my time here.
I plan to cover my other achievements in successive blogs. However, I’ll mostly talk about the ZEP in this blog.
The Motivation ⚡️
The users and developers of these implementations have diverse needs and expectations from the Zarr specification. I’ve seen in the community calls how folks come up with an idea/feature/request, if implemented in Zarr, would greatly benefit the broader community. But most of the time, these proposals are vague and lack proper motivation and, most notably, a well-defined process to execute and implement them.
Talking with Alistair
In February 2022, I was on a call with Alistair Miles (author of Zarr), and we briefly discussed how, in the past, the members of the Zarr community came up with an idea to change the spec. Alistair’s general concern was that their ideas/proposals were remotely not connected to the problems they were facing. In simpler words, the ideas and the problems were not entirely related. Also, sometimes the discussion from one community call doesn’t necessarily get carried over to the successive call due to the absence of participation/lack of interest/poor presentation, which halts the discussion on what could’ve been a potentially good proposal to the specification.
It’s not every time that the idea/proposal is not good. We came across some good proposals, and after establishing the community’s consensus, we moved forward. But converting the ideas into proposals and then implementing them to the Zarr specification along with a minimalistic working POC requires a ton of work. For the time being, the Zarr Steering Council was shepherding this, but IMHO that’s not sustainable for an ever-expanding community like Zarr.
Considering what I’ve said above, we were in dire need of a process that would not only have a well-defined manner of handling the incoming changes to the specification but also focus on involving the community and stakeholders in the decision-making process.
The Need 🤝🏻
As time went by, the need for having a process only increased. The need for a community feedback process was strongly evident from a few things we saw in the previous months. So, I’d like to briefly talk about sharding and the evolvement of Zarr Specification V2 to V3.
Adding Sharding Support
The addition of sharding to Zarr was proposed here and here. By going through the discussions over these GitHub issues, we can see that the Zarr community favours having sharding support added to the Zarr Specification. Also, upon further reading and looking upon Ryan’s comment here, we see that the author for sharding (Jonathon Striebel, Scalable Minds) is not clear on how does introduction of a significant change to the spec works which IMO was quite disheartening to see.
Evolvement of Specification V2 → V3
Speaking about Spec V2, the Zarr Specification V2 has been widely adopted and implemented in several programming languages. It has enabled the use of cloud and distributed computing to process various large and challenging datasets, particularly in the scientific domain. However, as the usage of Zarr has grown and broadened, several limitations of Zarr V2 have surfaced. Some of them are:
High latency storage: Zarr V2 was originally developed to support local file system storage. Because of this, the design of Zarr V2 implicitly made assumptions about the performance characteristics of the underlying storage technology, such as low latency for storage I/O.
And other limitations like extensibility and storage layout flexibility. These limitations have motivated the need for the evolvement of Zarr Specification V3. Evolving the spec to a newer version needs heavy involvement from the users and developers of Zarr, the core devs of several implementations, the Zarr Steering Council and the overall Zarr community.
We’ve also seen that scattered discussions on several GitHub issues/PRs in the past have led to delayed responses, loss of interest and unexpected outcomes. The process would help facilitate the discussions in a well-defined manner where it would be easy for everyone to follow and participate in it. We primarily aim to use GitHub to conduct discussions on the proposals where the Zarr community could participate asynchronously.
I’ve mentioned some of the many issues the community faced over the past several months, and to me, having a well-defined structured process in place would mitigate these issues.
Walking through it all…🚶🏻♂️
After talking with the Zarr Steering Council multiple times, hearing what the Zarr community had to say and going through past GitHub issues/PRs, now was time for me to take over and start working on the formation of a community feedback process for Zarr, which would later be named as Zarr Enhancement Proposal also abbreviated as ZEP. In this section, I’d try to walk through what I read, learnt, and did over months to formulate the ZEP. I’d try to limit this section and highlight only essential parts; otherwise, this would go on and on. But if you’re reading this and are interested in learning more, feel free to ping me. I’d be happy to discuss it with you or help you make one for your project/team/organisation.
Experience with processes
Firstly I’d talk very briefly about my experience with creating processes. If you have gone through my first blog here, you’ll notice that I’ve been heavily involved with PyData and NumFOCUS. In the past, working with them, I helped establish a particular process for the program committees at PyData conferences which helped us in a fair evaluation of proposals we received during the CFP period. I’ve also been taking care of the local PyData chapter in my hometown Delhi, where I had the opportunity to create well-defined systems to run the monthly meet-ups, collaborate with organisations around me, invite speakers etc. I very much liked doing all of it and learnt a great deal about the organisation and creating a system from the ground up when needed. But ZEP was completely different from what I had done so far, so it came with a challenge. I’ll walk you through the ZEP process in several small sections, and each of them will essentially emphasise different stages of development of the ZEP. Here we go:
Reading and understanding existing community process
I’ve been using Python for almost six years now and am familiar with PEP. I’ve gone through various PEPs in the past and sometimes controversial PEPs, too, like PEP 572, but I never got a chance to read PEP 1. PEP 1 lays out and defines the working and fundamentals of the Python Enhancement Proposal (PEP). PEP is beautifully written and covers some crucial sections like its types, workflow, review & resolution, templates etc. PEP helped me understand the structural requirement for developing a robust process. I want to extend my warm thanks to PEP’s authors for this. After this, I moved on to understanding NEP and STAC. NEP is somewhat similar to PEP, but it is closer to what we wanted as PEP is for a programming language and NEP is for an open-source project. NEP is like a simpler version of PEP, focusing on various sections essential for an open-source project, not a programming language. NEP helped me understand what to include and what to discard for ZEP. After digesting NEP, I moved to STAC. STAC stands for SpatioTemporal Asset Catalog, a specification for a common language to describe geospatial information. I liked that STAC’s process to handle incoming changes is interweaved with the specification. STAC uses Git and GitHub to their full potential to achieve its goal.
After I was done reading, I understood that ZEP needs to be somewhat between PEP, NEP and STAC. The system, documentation and working of PEP are something I wanted to adopt. PEP has proven a successful system for Python for a long time. But on the other hand, PEP is made for a language, so I needed to discard a few items from it. This is where NEP proved helpful. The Zarr specification is on a GitHub repo and uses Git for its workflows which made complete sense to use GitHub for handling incoming PRs to the spec, and this is what STAC does. So, if I had to summarise what I said above, I’d like to draw your attention to the Venn diagram below:
PEP as starting point and evolving it to ZEP
Initially, I used PEP for the first draft of ZEP, which can be seen on the GitHub pull request here. The first draft wasn’t the final one, but it helped me gather feedback from the Zarr community on what was missing, what was needed, and what was expected from the ZEP. The two critical changes incorporated after the feedback were:
- Defining a new category for ZEP (SPEC ZEPs) to handle specification changes
- Re-defining the governance process
I also took care of minor changes like defining governance process around less-interesting ZEPs or the ZEPs where the consensus would be difficult to achieve, removal of Standard Track ZEPs etc. If you’re interested in going through the commit history and the full conversation, please refer here.
Different types of ZEPs
After lengthy discussions, the community agreed on having the following ZEP types. Every category has its importance for the community:
- Specification ZEPs which would deal with the changes related to Zarr Specification
- Informational ZEPs which would describe a ZEP design issue or provides general guideline or information to the Zarr community
- Process ZEPs which would describe a new process around Zarr and its implementations
The governance process for ZEP needed to be different from what we’ve seen in other processes. The Zarr community operates differently from other language and open-source projects. The versatility of Zarr Specification and being open-source have enabled implementations in several programming languages. We wanted the core developers of these implementations to be included in the decision-making process of ZEPs. Since these implementations have followed the specification during the development phase, we didn’t want to accept a ZEP that would prove beneficial for one implementation and breaking change for another. The Zarr Steering Council plays a vital role in the workflow of ZEP, and they should unanimously approve the ZEPs. Also, there should be no vetos from the Zarr Implementations Council (which essentially consists of core developers of several Zarr implementations). Please read more about the governance of ZEPs here.
Zarr Implementations Council a.k.a. ZIC
The invites were sent to all of the implementations, which can be seen here. I’m happy to express that almost all of the invites were accepted by the implementations, and a diverse group of humans represents the ZIC. These wonderful humans would help us further develop Zarr Specification, respective open-source implementations and the overall Zarr community. Please refer to the full list of ZIC members here.
The next step was to set up a website to render and display the incoming ZEPs.
After the PR was merged, I started working on the website for ZEP. The website shows the active and draft ZEPs as of now. ZEP 0 lives under active ZEPs as it’s a process ZEP. Once we accept draft ZEPs, they’ll be moved under the accepted ZEPs section. Feel free to browse the website here: https://zarr.dev/zeps/.
So, this was my journey in the formulation of the ZEP process. Over the past few months, I’ve learned much about Zarr, its community and the project, and I look forward to solving interesting problems and helping Zarr.
Thanks for reading my blog. I hope I was able to convey my thoughts in a clear and structured manner. If you like this blog, feel free to share it on social media and please mention Zarr too.
I’d appreciate any feedback for this blog, the website or anything remotely related to Zarr. You can reach me at firstname.lastname@example.org. See you soon! ✌🏻