Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2019-05-31 10:24:36 -0400 (-0400), Erik McCormick wrote: > [...] >> there's a project [1]. >> >> So either: >> A) Make a SIG out of that and assign the repos to the sig, or >> B) Maybe add it under / rename the Ops Docs SIG [2] as it might bring >> more eyes to both things which serve the same folks. > [...] > > I'd also be perfectly fine with C) say that it's being vouched for > by the UC through its Osops project, stick these repos in a list > *somewhere* as a durable record of that, and let decisions about > project vs. SIG decision be independent of the repository naming > decision. +2 to keep it under the openstack/ namespace one way or another. As to what construct should "own" it, the closest thing we have that would match history would be a UC "team"[1] or "working group"[2], both of which have repositories defined in [3]. Alternatively, I feel like a SIG (be it the Ops Docs SIG or a new "Operational tooling" SIG) would totally be a good idea to revive this. In that case we'd define the repository in [4]. My personal preference would be for a new SIG, but whoever is signing up to work on this should definitely have the final say. [1] https://opendev.org/openstack/governance-uc/src/branch/master/reference/teams.yaml [2] https://opendev.org/openstack/governance-uc/src/branch/master/reference/working-groups.yaml [3] https://opendev.org/openstack/governance/src/branch/master/reference/user-committee-repos.yaml [4] https://opendev.org/openstack/governance/src/branch/master/reference/sigs-repos.yaml -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)