Open Stack

Interested in this as well. We use Openstack a $Dayjob :)

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:52 PM Amy Marrich <amy at demarco.com> wrote:

> +1 on combining this in with the existing SiG and efforts.
>
> Amy (spotz)
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 1:02 PM Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmx.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> >> If Osops should be considered distinct from OpenStack
>> >
>> > That feels like the wrong statement to make, even if only implicitly
>> > by repo organization. Is there a compelling reason not to have osops
>> > under the openstack namespace?
>> >
>> I think it makes the most sense to be under the openstack namespace.
>>
>> We have the Operations Docs SIG right now that took on some of the
>> operator-specific documentation that no longer had a home. This was a
>> consistent issue brought up in the Ops Meetup events. While not "wildly
>> successful" in getting a bunch of new and updated docs, it at least has
>> accomplished the main goal of getting these docs published to
>> docs.openstack.org again, and providing a place where more collaboration
>> can (and occasionally does) happen to improve those docs.
>>
>> I think we could probably expand the scope of this SIG. Especially
>> considering it is a pretty low-volume SIG anyway. I would be good with
>> changing this to something like the "Operator Docs and Tooling SIG" and
>> getting any of these useful tooling repos under governance through that.
>> I personally wouldn't be able to spend a lot of time working on anything
>> under the SIG, but I'd be happy to keep an eye out for any new reviews
>> and help get those through.
>>
>> Sean
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20200729/16e101d0/attachment.html>