Open Stack

Hi all,

Just a quick update on how the contributor portal project will be
organized.

We created a new subteam under the Documentation Project.
This subteam (specialty team), led by Mike, will maintain the
portal repo openstack/contributor-guide.

Patches addressing this have been merged:

https://review.openstack.org/#/q/Ib8062210854e1979aa1f56bd7c0f5af8e578decc

Thanks,
pk


On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:13:46 -0700
Mike Perez <thingee at gmail.com> wrote:

> # Contributor Portal Next Steps
> 
> ## Landing Page Mock ups
> * Current mock up:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxMh9oiou2xMLVRvRWRFVklHa2c/view
> * Limited click through mock up:
> https://invis.io/CSDEZTBDJ#/252645774_Landing
> 
> ## Todo
> - [ ] thingee: A proposal for the *second level* of what the landing page
> shows.
> - [ ] thingee: Follow up with the Wes and Jimmy at the OpenStack Foundation
> for design assistance.
> 
> ## Communication To The Community
> * [Initial
> email](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-June/118877.html)
> * [Initial full
> thread](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-June/thread.html#118877)
> 
> ## Highlights from PTG session
> [OpenStack Etherpad](https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/contributor-portal)
> 
> ### TLDR (big changes from discussion)
> * Instead of all team on-boarding documentation living in a central
> repository, it will still remain with the individual teams to maintain in
> their own repository. General documentation (e.g. git, creating accounts,
> gerrit setup, etc) will still live in this central repo. If you choose to
> contribute by code for example and you pick a project, it will take you
> through our general documentation, then the project’s specific documentation.
>     * This could lead to inconsistencies in documentation design? Confusion
>     for the reader being sent to different pages?
> 
> ### General
> * We can’t go based off services. Not everything people are contributing
> to is a service, so they won't have anything corresponding in the
> [service type authority
> repo](http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/service-types-authority/tree/service-types.yaml).
> There might be a field in projects.yaml that can help with this.
>     * Remind Thierry on the service type authority repo for
>     grouping/mapping project.
>     * Videos were considered, but they’re hard to keep up-to-date.
>     Previous Documentation PTL Alexandra Settle expressed that even
>     screenshots can get out of date real fast. 
>     * Generate some kind of crash-course / cheatsheet content for people
>     who are used to GitHub but not familiar with Gerrit. Aspiers
>     volunteered for this and made this first pass [ethercalc
>     sheet](https://ethercalc.openstack.org/github-gerrit).
>     * Translation team needs to be included
>     * Provide documentation with how to edit the landing page, since the
>     source is being hosted on github (there are transition discussions in
>     place with the infra team and Jimmy)
>     * Help projects with creating their own contributor guides if they
>     need to. Think of something like Cookie cutter for setting up the
>     scaffolding for a new OpenStack project, but getting projects
>     contributor guides going.
> 
> ### Upstream Institute
> Attendees of the session we’re more in favor of projects keeping
> their specific documentation owned in their repositories. As learned
> from the centralize documentation problem
> [1](http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/docs-specs/specs/pike/os-manuals-migration.html)
> [2](https://doughellmann.com/blog/2017/08/24/stop-working-so-hard-scaling-open-source-community-practices/)
> [3](https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/top-5-help-wanted.html#documentation-owners),
> this is a good move. Upstream institute would then use whatever
> general documentation is provided. If people get past that, we could
> even suggest on-boarding to one of the [top 5 most wanted
> help](https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/top-5-help-wanted.html)!
> 
> ### User Committee
> Lauren Sell worked with Melvin and others from the user committee to get their
> requirements and perspective on the project. Here's an ether pad:
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/contributor-portal-user-section
> 
> ### Mock Up Feedback
> * Having the service types is great, but on the next level it would
> be good to express the code name with a description of what the
> project does.
> * Combine in events OpenStack day, meetups, forum, ptg, etc.
> (emphasize on in person thing)
> 
> ### Bikeshed
> * A word that combines code and documentation ("team(s)" was already
> rejected)
> 
> -- 
> Mike Perez