Open Stack

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

Sean

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 at gmail.com
> <mailto:dev.faz at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     +1
>
>     Laurent Dumont <laurentfdumont at gmail.com
>     <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Morgan <mihalis68 at gmail.com <mailto:mihalis68 at gmail.com>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20200730/687d4e34/attachment.html>