Hi All... I'm still a little confused by the state of this :)
I know I made some promises then got distracted the looks like Sean stepped up and got things a bit further, but where is it now? Do we have an active repo? It would be nice to have the repo in place before OPs meetup. -Jon On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:40:33PM -0500, Amy Marrich wrote: :Sean put together some really great things here and I do think the SiG :might be the way to go as far as ownership for the repos and the plan looks :pretty complete. I've offered to do the Git and Gerrit Lunch and Learn at :the OPS mmetup if needed to help get folks set up and going. : :Amy (spotz) : :On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:42 AM, 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 :> :> :> _______________________________________________ :> 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
