Open Stack

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anne Gentle" <annegentle at justwriteclick.com>
> To: "Nermina Miller" <nmiller at mirantis.com>
> Cc: openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 2:24:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-docs] OpenStack Documentation Audience Analysis

> > Steve says that to him as a deployer it is more important that the depth
> > of coverage of each project is consistent, regardless whether the guides
> > are all in one or separate.
> >
> >
> Hm. Which Steve is this? Do they mean core or integrated or both? Here's
> the list of projects:
> __CORE PROJECTS__
> Compute (Nova)
> Object Storage (Swift)
> Image Service (Glance)
> Identity (Keystone)
> Dashboard (Horizon)
> Networking (Neutron)
> Block Storage (Cinder)
> 
> __INTEGRATED PROJECTS__
> Metering/Monitoring (Ceilometer)
> Orchestration (Heat)
> Database Service (Trove)
> Bare metal (Ironic)
> 
> I want to hear more about this.

I believe this one was me, primarily (at least for now) I meant core. In particular I was referring to the varying depth/quality of the existing administration guides for each of these projects, where they exist. I believe you have mentioned before that in part the quality of the better ones (Block Storage / Networking?) is at least partially a result to the relevant project teams being more involved in their upkeep which fits somewhat with the earlier point in Nermina's email about trying to have a liaison assigned for each.

Thanks,

Steve