whitepaper: Syncing changes from the 1.0 community review & contribution period.

[bwplotka]

Thanks everyone for amazing feedback! Apologies for a bit short period, but the paper was sitting for 2y without changes, so it made sense to time box 1.0 and allow structured work on further iterations. We acknowledge there are tons of additional context we can add we plan to cover in the next iterations!

Still, within this community review & contribution period I counted 67 individual contributions (count of comment/suggestion bubbles, excluding my own and not counting individual discussion comments) from old, but also 8 new contributors: @beorn7 @graphaelli @gouthamve @zeitlinger @krisztianfekete @nicolastakashi @vjsamuel and "CK". 💪🏽

High level changes (suggested by community, but also clean up by me):

• Note on aggregatability and volume of metrics.
• Added non goals
• Changing example from temperature to memory gauge
• Add reasons for metric efficiency
• Added info about cardinality (new section)
• Mentioned metric data models
• Added info about metric types
• Metric time series vs count
• Adding profile screenshot
• Cleaning up, simplifying correlation section
• Removing how to setup Prometheus with exemplars, too specific.
• Box based monitoring refactor - changing "closed box" to traditional model mention
• Clarified SLO/SLA
• Added image and figure captions
• More automatic and non-intrusive instrumentation solutions in OSS
• Linking ebay paper
• Added gap around streaming API, not enough DBs and standarized query language
• Did grammarly pass for typos.

...and more.

As mentioned in the doc I went through all additional and old feedback. It's now either addressed in this PR or added as todos in separate issues for 1.X version.

I admit, it was fun to process that doc! Reminds me of year ago when I was, fully focused, writing my book on slightly different topic.

Next Steps

1. I propose co-chairs @alolita @halcyondude and @RichiH to review and merge this sync if appropriate.
2. Ask CNCF for tech writing help, so we have professional editing pass on this document.
3. Copy the resulted doc to tip/draft-whitepaper.md so we can work on additional context (so many opporunities!)
4. We can announce 1.0!

[bwplotka]

Friendly ping @alolita @RichiH and @halcyondude.

From next week I am starting 5w paternity leave, so I won't be able to properly address comments or progress on whitepaper myself for that period.

[halcyondude]

Hi @bwplotka, apologies for the delay, summer resourcing and time away.

Regarding the specific next steps, and shifting what comes next to 1.1 is a reasonable approach that I support.

Thank you all for the work over the span of actual years to bring things to where they are now.

[bwplotka]

Thanks! Any objections @alolita? @RichiH ?

[bwplotka]

@RichiH asked for one day more for review time.

Final deadline: Friday EOD

[kenfinnigan]

Any outstanding issues with this, or can we merge it?

[bwplotka]

I wanted to check https://github.com/cncf/tag-observability/pull/132#discussion_r1336129792 outstanding comment, but it's not a blocker, so yes. It's ready 🤗 🎉

~Sorry for lag, which at the end was not needed 🙈~

Actually let's address those refs and add this paper to the "tip" so people can collab.