I have proposed https://review.opendev.org/#/c/744005/ to expand the scope of the Operations Docs SIG to include tooling like this.


On 7/30/20 7:52 AM, Chris Morgan wrote:
+1 to put these in the Operations Docs SIG

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 12:25 AM Fabian Zimmermann <dev.faz@gmail.com> wrote:

Laurent Dumont <laurentfdumont@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 29. Juli 2020, 04:00:
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.


Chris Morgan <mihalis68@gmail.com>