Interested in this as well. We use Openstack a $Dayjob :) On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:52 PM Amy Marrich <amy@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@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