Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2018-05-23 22:58:40 -0700: > 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.
When I talked with Petr about it, he pointed to the Security SIG and Security Guide as a parallel precedent for this. IIRC, yesterday Adam mentioned that the Self-Healing SIG was also going to be managing some documentation, so we have two examples. Looking at https://governance.openstack.org/sigs/, I don't see another existing SIG that it would make sense to join, so, I think to deal with the publishing rights we would want set up a SIG for something like "Operator Documentation," which gives you some flexibility on exactly what content is managed. I know you wanted to avoid lots of governance overhead, so I want to just mention that establishing a SIG is meant to be a painless and light-weight way to declare that a group of interested people exists so that others can find them and participate in the work [1]. It shouldn't take much effort to do the setup, and any ongoing communication is something you would presumably by doing anyway among a group of people trying to collaborate on a project like this. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns about the process. Doug [1] https://governance.openstack.org/sigs/#process-to-create-a-sig > > > 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
