On 4 April 2017 at 06:52, Lana Brindley <openst...@lanabrindley.com> wrote:
> On 04/04/17 03:48, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > > On 2017-04-03 17:47, Anne Gentle wrote: > >> Ah, okay, I wasn't sure if I remembered correctly and didn't take time > >> to look it up, eep. > >> > >> So, we should probably have that discussion of scope of docs core > >> reviewers. For example, docs tools are super important and becoming > >> moreso as we enable more teams and become consultants. As another > >> example, someone like me, who focuses on all API docs but the source > >> changes are reviewed in other repos, I simply won't have the numbers to > >> remain core on openstack-manuals. > >> > >> What do others think? Is my view basically unique due to my specialty > area? > > > > We have very few repos and should either look at them together - or have > > different policies for them. > > > > As long as we do not have separate core teams for the different > > components, we should find a good balance and include tools, api-site - > > and consider also how to handle security-guide. > > > > Btw. let's not split core-teams, I think that opens a completely > > different set of problems, > > Yeah, let's make sure we're covering the repos that we expect our cores to > act in. I'm not sure which module works best here. > > +1. Documentation Official is probably a good starting point, although we may need to finesse it a bit. Also, yea to Alex's core team recommendation for April. Brian
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-doc-core Post to : openstack-doc-core@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-doc-core More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
