Excerpts from Melvin Hillsman's message of 2018-05-23 22:26:02 -0700: > Great to see this moving. I have some questions/concerns based on your > statement Doug about docs.openstack.org publishing and do not want to > detour the conversation but ask for feedback. Currently there are a number
I'm just unclear on that, but don't consider it a blocker. We will sort out whatever governance or policy change is needed to let this move forward. > of repositories under osops- > > https://github.com/openstack-infra/project-config/blob/master/gerrit/projects.yaml#L5673-L5703 > > Generally active: > osops-tools-contrib > osops-tools-generic > osops-tools-monitoring > > > Probably dead: > osops-tools-logging > osops-coda > osops-example-configs > > Because you are more familiar with how things work, is there a way to > consolidate these vs coming up with another repo like osops-docs or > whatever in this case? And second, is there already governance clearance to > publish based on the following - https://launchpad.net/osops - which is > where these repos originated. I don't really know what any of those things are, or whether it makes sense to put this new content there. I assumed we would make a repo with a name like "operations-guide", but that's up to Chris and John. If they think reusing an existing repository makes sense, that would be OK with me, but it's cheap and easy to set up a new one, too. My main concern is that we remove the road blocks, now that we have people interested in contributing to this documentation. > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:56 PM, Frank Kloeker <eu...@arcor.de> wrote: > > > Hi Chris, > > > > thanks for summarize our session today in Vancouver. As I18n PTL and one > > of the Docs Core I put Petr in Cc. He is currently Docs PTL, but > > unfortunatelly not on-site. > > I couldn't also not get the full history of the story and that's also not > > the idea to starting finger pointing. As usualy we moving forward and there > > are some interesting things to know what happened. > > First of all: There are no "Docs-Team" anymore. If you look at [1] there > > are mostly part-time contributors like me or people are more involved in > > other projects and therefore busy. Because of that, the responsibility of > > documentation content are moved completely to the project teams. Each repo > > has a user guide, admin guide, deployment guide, and so on. The small > > Documentation Team provides only tooling and give advices how to write and > > publish a document. So it's up to you to re-use the old repo on [2] or > > setup a new one. I would recommend to use the best of both worlds. There > > are a very good toolset in place for testing and publishing documents. > > There are also various text editors for rst extensions available, like in > > vim, notepad++ or also online services. I understand the concerns and when > > people are sad because their patches are ignored for months. But it's > > alltime a question of responsibilty and how can spend people time. > > I would be available for help. As I18n PTL I could imagine that a > > OpenStack Operations Guide is available in different languages and portable > > in different formats like in Sphinx. For us as translation team it's a good > > possibility to get feedback about the quality and to understand the > > requirements, also for other documents. > > So let's move on. > > > > kind regards > > > > Frank > > > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/30,members > > [2] https://github.com/openstack/operations-guide > > > > > > Am 2018-05-24 03:38, schrieb Chris Morgan: > > > >> Hello Everyone, > >> > >> In the Ops Community documentation working session today in Vancouver, > >> we made some really good progress (etherpad here: > >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-Ops-Community-Docs but not all of > >> the good stuff is yet written down). > >> > >> In short, we're going to course correct on maintaining the Operators > >> Guide, the HA Guide and Architecture Guide, not edit-in-place via the > >> wiki and instead try still maintaining them as code, but with a > >> different, new set of owners, possibly in a new Ops-focused repo. > >> There was a strong consensus that a) code workflow >> wiki workflow > >> and that b) openstack core docs tools are just fine. > >> > >> There is a lot still to be decided on how where and when, but we do > >> have an offer of a rewrite of the HA Guide, as long as the changes > >> will be allowed to actually land, so we expect to actually start > >> showing some progress. > >> > >> At the end of the session, people wanted to know how to follow along > >> as various people work out how to do this... and so for now that place > >> is this very email thread. The idea is if the code for those documents > >> goes to live in a different repo, or if new contributors turn up, or > >> if a new version we will announce/discuss it here until such time as > >> we have a better home for this initiative. > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> Chris > >> > >> -- > >> Chris Morgan <mihali...@gmail.com> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenStack-operators mailing list > >> OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-operators mailing list > > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > > > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
