This sounds great. As I understand it Sean can set up a skeleton for us to work on ops docs (and maybe other things later) with a minimum of initiation energy. Count me in.
Chris On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 12:42 PM Sean McGinnis <sean.mcgin...@gmx.com> wrote: > Reviving this thread with a fresh start. See below for the original. > > To recap, the ops community is willing to take over some of the operator > documentation that is no longer available due to the loss of documentation > team > resources. From discussions, there needs to be some official governance > over > this operator owned repo (or repos) so it is recommended that a sig be > formed. > The repos can be created in the meantime, but consideration needs to be > taken > about naming as by default, the repo name is what is reflected in the > documentation publishing location. > > SIG Formation > ------------- > There were a couple suggestions on naming and focus for this sig, but I > would > like to make a slightly different proposal. I would actually like to see a > sig-operator group formed. We have repos for operator tools and other > useful > things and we have a mix of operators, vendors, and others that work > together > on things like the ops meetup. I think it would make sense to make this > into an > official SIG that could have a broader scope than just documentation. > > Docs Repos > ---------- > Doug made a good suggestion that we may want these things published under > something like docs.openstack.org/operations-guide. So based on this, I > think > for now at least we should create an opestack/operations-guide repo that > will > end up being owned by this SIG. I would expect most documentation > generated or > owned by this group would just be located somewhere under that repo, but > if the > need arises we can add additional repos. > > There are other ops repos out there right now. I would expect the > ownership of > those to move under this sig as well, but that is a seperate and less > pressing > concern at this point. > > Bug Tracking > ------------ > There should be some way to track tasks and needs for this documentation > and > any other repos that are moved under this sig. Since it is the currently > planned direction for all OpenStack projects (or at least there is a vocal > desire for it to be) I think a Storyboard project should be created for > this > SIG's activities. > > Plan > ---- > So to recap above, I would propose the following actions be taken: > > 1. Create sig-operators as a group to manage operator efforts at least > related > to what needs to be done in repos. > 2. Create an openstack/operations-guide repo to be the new home of the > operations documentation. > 3. Create a new StoryBoard project to help track work in these repos > x. Document all this. > 9. Profit! > > I'm willing to work through the steps to get these things set up. Please > give > feedback if this proposed plan makes sense or if there is anything > different > that would be preferred. > > Thanks, > Sean > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 06:38:32PM -0700, Chris Morgan wrote: > > 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 > > -- Chris Morgan <mihali...@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
