Open Stack

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Sean Roberts <seanrob at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

>  I'd normally be okay with the incubation subdir, but we have been
> communicating the current docs.openstack.org/training-guides for a while.
> I think it would be confusing to move it at this point.
>
>  We three are on the review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96334/
> I need your stackforge comment so fungi and jeblair will release the infra
> patch.
>

Got it, noted there:

- I'm fine with a redirect from already-published URLs while we re-boot the
training project.
- Also, we use a stackforge project for the maven builds. So I am okay with
publishing to docs.openstack.org but would like to indicate the training
project's current status.



>
>  I'll make sure these are part of the goals
>
>  - increase the quality of the training manuals
> - set reader's expectations about the training manuals being
> community-based
> - increase the contributor base and core reviewers
> - ensure reuse of tools and content to avoid duplication of effort while
> still providing unique deliverables for training purposes
>
>
>  Noted
>
> note that your builds use tox and keep updated with the
> global-requirements list.
>
>
>  Thanks
>
> ~sean
>
> On Jun 9, 2014, at 6:18 AM, "Anne Gentle" <anne at openstack.org> wrote:
>
>   Inserting Sean's question set (sorry for the copy/paste).
>
>  We are starting to hit some questions that I do not have ready answers
> to.?
>         * where to store the data: Tom and I were initially thinking
> stackforge before incubation. move under the openstack repo org after
> incubation as training-guides. fungi and jeblair are questioning a
> stackforge project publishing todocs.openstack.org rather than just
> openstack-manuals. I do not have a great answer other than I believe Anne
> is good with that for now. If the docs PTL and team is okay with this, do
> I need to ask the TC as well?
>
>  Yes, stackforge is the right placement. I'm fine with publishing to
> docs.openstack.org/ -- we used to have docs.openstack.org/incubation/ --
> perhaps that URL is a good place?
>
>  I want to back up a bit and make sure we all understand the goals here
> (many of these are listed in the Incubation Plan also):
> - increase the quality of the training manuals
> - set reader's expectations about the training manuals being
> community-based
> - increase the contributor base and core reviewers
> - ensure reuse of tools and content to avoid duplication of effort while
> still providing unique deliverables for training purposes
>
>         * where to house the project: I would like it to stay under the
> documentation program. Any other ideas?
>
>  I think that's the idea, that you'll fit within the Docs program, and
> your incubation plan below is a great start.
>
> Find here the all the incubation plan Q&A using the latest TC requirements
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Training-guides#Incubation_Plan
>
>  Looks good, you might note that your builds use tox and keep updated
> with the global-requirements list.
>
>  Thanks for asking Sean -- let's get this ramped up.
> Anne
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Tom Fifield <tom at openstack.org> wrote:
>
>> On 30/05/14 01:40, Anne Gentle wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Tom Fifield <tom at openstack.org
>>>  <mailto:tom at openstack.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi,
>>>
>>>     Sean Roberts, Stefano and I just had a very fruitful discussion
>>>     regarding the training manuals project.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks you all for discussing.
>>>
>>>
>>>     We think that it's time to allow the the training guides to become a
>>>     free-standing project of its own accord, and start attracting
>>>     significantly more people around it.
>>>
>>>
>>>     This will make it easier for contributors who just want to work on
>>>     training to find the project, see lists of bugs and tasks relevant
>>>     to them*, and also provide a clearer pathway toward becoming
>>>     contributors, and eventually core reviewers.
>>>
>>>     It will also enable the training guides project to have its own
>>>     policies, and allow the repository to be used for investigation of
>>>     training infrastructure, such as the recent forays into moodle for
>>>     example.
>>>
>>>     However, with every change such as this, there are drawbacks, and so
>>>     we feel it's important to discuss these as well - and most
>>>     importantly get your input.
>>>
>>>     For example, while we can continue to re-use tools and content, this
>>>     would mean a different review queue and repository - which could
>>>     frustrate if you are working across both projects.
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope the intention is to continue to use inclusion of known tested
>>> content from the various other OpenStack repos as needed.
>>>
>>
>> Yup, that's the case.
>>
>>
>>>     What are your thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds great to me. Thanks all!
>>> Anne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>     * as opposed to the 400 odd in the openstack-manuals tracker!
>>>
>>>      _________________________________________________
>>>     Openstack-docs mailing list
>>>     Openstack-docs at lists.__openstack.org
>>>     <mailto:Openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org>
>>>     http://lists.openstack.org/__cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/__
>>> openstack-docs
>>>     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20140609/5605fdca/attachment.html>