Open Stack

> On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Edgar Magana <edgar.magana at workday.com <mailto:edgar.magana at workday.com>> wrote:
> Russell,
> 
>  
> 
> All those references can be fixed. We do not feel like an impediment for this proposal.
> 
> In terms of alternatives, we believe that this is the best and mostly the correct way to move forward.
> 
> 
> ​We can certainly fix the references we control.  Others we do not control.
> 
> One example: https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=governance.openstack.org <https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=governance.openstack.org>​
> 
> ​To be clear, I understand and support the idea that you want some kind of "equal footing" with the TC's documentation.

I’m not sure combining these sources into the same repo makes sense from an “ownership” perspective.

The existing content includes TC resolutions and project rules. Because of the nature of the content, we’ve limited roll call reviewers and merge access to the TC and TC chair respectively. It seems like the UC is going to want similar control over their own content, and doing that would be simpler using a separate repository published to a separate site. We don’t put any board content in the existing repo either, so it’s not like having a separate repo would be unequal or disadvantaging the UC.

I’d be happy to help with the work of setting up a sphinx repo to publish a separate site for the UC if you want a hand.

Doug

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/attachments/20160601/17517de2/attachment.html>