Open Stack

+1

Laurent Dumont <laurentfdumont at 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 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/20200729/812af32e/attachment-0001.html>