Open Stack

Excerpts from Melvin Hillsman's message of 2018-05-23 22:26:02 -0700:
> Great to see this moving. I have some questions/concerns based on your
> statement Doug about docs.openstack.org publishing and do not want to
> detour the conversation but ask for feedback. Currently there are a number

I'm just unclear on that, but don't consider it a blocker. We will sort
out whatever governance or policy change is needed to let this move
forward.

> of repositories under osops-
> 
> https://github.com/openstack-infra/project-config/blob/master/gerrit/projects.yaml#L5673-L5703
> 
> Generally active:
> osops-tools-contrib
> osops-tools-generic
> osops-tools-monitoring
> 
> 
> Probably dead:
> osops-tools-logging
> osops-coda
> osops-example-configs
> 
> Because you are more familiar with how things work, is there a way to
> consolidate these vs coming up with another repo like osops-docs or
> whatever in this case? And second, is there already governance clearance to
> publish based on the following - https://launchpad.net/osops - which is
> where these repos originated.

I don't really know what any of those things are, or whether it
makes sense to put this new content there. I assumed we would make
a repo with a name like "operations-guide", but that's up to Chris
and John.  If they think reusing an existing repository makes sense,
that would be OK with me, but it's cheap and easy to set up a new
one, too.

My main concern is that we remove the road blocks, now that we have
people interested in contributing to this documentation.

> 
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:56 PM, Frank Kloeker <eumel at arcor.de> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > thanks for summarize our session today in Vancouver. As I18n PTL and one
> > of the Docs Core I put Petr in Cc. He is currently Docs PTL, but
> > unfortunatelly not on-site.
> > I couldn't also not get the full history of the story and that's also not
> > the idea to starting finger pointing. As usualy we moving forward and there
> > are some interesting things to know what happened.
> > First of all: There are no "Docs-Team" anymore. If you look at [1] there
> > are mostly part-time contributors like me or people are more involved in
> > other projects and therefore busy. Because of that, the responsibility of
> > documentation content are moved completely to the project teams. Each repo
> > has a user guide, admin guide, deployment guide, and so on. The small
> > Documentation Team provides only tooling and give advices how to write and
> > publish a document. So it's up to you to re-use the old repo on [2] or
> > setup a new one. I would recommend to use the best of both worlds. There
> > are a very good toolset in place for testing and publishing documents.
> > There are also various text editors for rst extensions available, like in
> > vim, notepad++ or also online services. I understand the concerns and when
> > people are sad because their patches are ignored for months. But it's
> > alltime a question of responsibilty and how can spend people time.
> > I would be available for help. As I18n PTL I could imagine that a
> > OpenStack Operations Guide is available in different languages and portable
> > in different formats like in Sphinx. For us as translation team it's a good
> > possibility to get feedback about the quality and to understand the
> > requirements, also for other documents.
> > So let's move on.
> >
> > kind regards
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/30,members
> > [2] https://github.com/openstack/operations-guide
> >
> >
> > Am 2018-05-24 03:38, schrieb Chris Morgan:
> >
> >> Hello Everyone,
> >>
> >> In the Ops Community documentation working session today in Vancouver,
> >> we made some really good progress (etherpad here:
> >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-Ops-Community-Docs but not all of
> >> the good stuff is yet written down).
> >>
> >> In short, we're going to course correct on maintaining the Operators
> >> Guide, the HA Guide and Architecture Guide, not edit-in-place via the
> >> wiki and instead try still maintaining them as code, but with a
> >> different, new set of owners, possibly in a new Ops-focused repo.
> >> There was a strong consensus that a) code workflow >> wiki workflow
> >> and that b) openstack core docs tools are just fine.
> >>
> >> There is a lot still to be decided on how where and when, but we do
> >> have an offer of a rewrite of the HA Guide, as long as the changes
> >> will be allowed to actually land, so we expect to actually start
> >> showing some progress.
> >>
> >> At the end of the session, people wanted to know how to follow along
> >> as various people work out how to do this... and so for now that place
> >> is this very email thread. The idea is if the code for those documents
> >> goes to live in a different repo, or if new contributors turn up, or
> >> if a new version we will announce/discuss it here until such time as
> >> we have a better home for this initiative.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> --
> >> Chris Morgan <mihalis68 at gmail.com>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> >> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-operators mailing list
> > OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> >
>