[ops] Reviving OSOps ?

Amy Marrich amy at demarco.com
Mon Jul 27 18:44:30 UTC 2020


+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/20200727/1abbe3cf/attachment.html>


More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list