Open Stack

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse.com> wrote:

> On 07/01/2014 01:16 AM, Anne Gentle wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse.com
> > <mailto:aj at suse.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 06/30/2014 11:45 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
> >     > Hi again all,
> >     >
> >     > Thanks to Andreas we have the correct voting access list for the
> >     > docs-specs repo: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103115/
> >     >
> >     > I wanted to be sure we all understand when you do a spec. This is
> >     > especially important for docs-specs where you might be better off
> >     > spending time revising an actual patch rather than continuously
> >     revising
> >     > a spec. A spec can be used for:
> >     > - adding a large portion to an existing deliverable to ensure
> buy-in
> >     > from the core doc team
> >     > - adding an entirely new deliverable to the docs project
> >     > - any work that requires both content and tooling changes, such as
> the
> >     > addition of the API reference site, for sure that work needed a
> >     blueprint
> >     > - any large reorganization of a deliverable or set of deliverables
> >     > - automation work that will need to be designed prior to proposing
> >     a patch
> >     > - work that should definitely be discussed at a summit
> >     >
> >     > Use bugs for:
> >     > - known content issues, even if you have to do multiple patches in
> >     order
> >     > to close the bug
> >     > - additions of content that is just plain missing
> >     > - known errors in the document
> >     >
> >     > I want to ensure we balance out the need for up-front approval with
> >     > "just write it already" -- it's a balancing act and we all should
> >     start
> >     > from a point of agreement on these guidelines.
> >     >
> >     > Feel free to ask for clarity -
> >
> >
> >     Are there any special rules for approving a blueprint?
> >
> >
> > I looked through the other team's guidelines, and it's the usual two +2
> > votes from -core. I did see that for Oslo, for example, the PTL sent a
> > note to the mailing list saying "if you don't -1 this spec by this day
> > I'll just approve it myself" so I think that's approach is fine for
> > docs-specs.
>
>
> Anne, could you document this somewhere, please?
>
> The repository is alive now, see https://github.com/openstack/docs-specs
>  - seems it only misses the ACLs, I'll talk with infra team,
>

Great! Thanks. Have added to this week's update.

I think the ACL for the review team for docs-specs can be as small as:
Anne Gentle
Sean Roberts
Andreas Jaeger
Bryan Payne

or as large as all of docs-core.

I've found that projects are going either way with it. Our setup is a
separate team, but we can populate as we need. Any thoughts either way?

Thanks,
Anne



>
> Andreas
> --
>  Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
>   SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
>    GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
>     GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20140702/0fb30829/attachment.html>