Open Stack

Hey Melvin,

Ah yes, I should’ve mentioned earlier that this is totally a POC.
There are lots missing, don’t worry! :)

—
Mike Perez

On June 29, 2017 at 13:47:14, Melvin Hillsman (mrhillsman at gmail.com) wrote:
> +1
>
> Did not have a chance to draft a message but thanks for ops mention.
>
> On Jun 29, 2017 3:02 PM, "Amy Marrich" wrote:
>
> > First off it looks really sleek and I love the look! A few thoughts though
> > and I do realize it's just a mock up:
> >
> > 1) We have Sponsor just to pick one but don't have
> > Operators/Administrators and their feedback is a major contribution so
> > please don't leave them out.
> > 2) I would list the contributor types in alphabetical order that way no
> > group feels slighted, you can't help it if Use Cases are last it's just
> > that they start with a U vs Code which is a C.
> > 3) What if you would like to contribute in multiple ways?
> >
> > Resources are definitely still underdevelopment there but are they meant
> > to be broad applicable to all resources with more specialized one's visible
> > when you click on how you'd like to contribute?
> >
> > Amy (spotz)
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Mike Perez wrote:
> >
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> Wes has just took my ugly mock up of the contributor portal idea and
> >> came up with this [1].
> >>
> >> Here’s what he said:
> >>
> >> "The idea is to help get potential contributors to the right place,
> >> using the outline Mike put together. Rather than sending people to a
> >> different page for each contribution type, users would be able to see
> >> what options are available all on this page. We’d send them to any
> >> necessary page(s) once they’ve gone through this quasi-wizard. Is this
> >> along the lines of what you were thinking? page 2 shows the view once
> >> you’ve clicked “Code” on page 1 (just in case that wasn’t super
> >> obvious) Thanks!”
> >>
> >> What do you all think? This does change things a bit of instead of the
> >> landing page being more obvious of a resource of links, it’s both for
> >> new and current contributors. Current contributors would hopefully be
> >> able to see the resource links below.
> >>
> >> Keep in mind that we will be working in the “Top 5 requested help” and
> >> as suggested by Clark, an option of “I don’t know where I want to
> >> start, but I want to help” kind of option. This would direct people to
> >> resources such as Upstream University, mentor program, low hanging
> >> fruit, that release priority idea I talked about earlier, etc.
> >>
> >> Personally I like it!
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] - https://www.dropbox.com/s/3q172qwfkik1ysd/contributor-port
> >> al.pdf?dl=0
> >>
> >> —
> >> Mike Perez
> >>
> >> On June 27, 2017 at 13:48:36, Mike Perez (thingee at gmail.com) wrote:
> >> > Hello all,
> >> >
> >> > Every month we have people asking on IRC or the dev mailing list having
> >> interest in working
> >> > on OpenStack, and sometimes they're given different answers from
> >> people, or worse,
> >> > no answer at all.
> >> >
> >> > Suggestion: lets work our efforts together to create some common
> >> documentation so that
> >> > all teams in OpenStack can benefit.
> >> >
> >> > First it’s important to note that we’re not just talking about code
> >> projects here. OpenStack
> >> > contributions come in many forms such as running meet ups, identifying
> >> use cases (product
> >> > working group), documentation, testing, etc. We want to make sure those
> >> potential contributors
> >> > feel welcomed too!
> >> >
> >> > What is common documentation? Things like setting up Git, the many
> >> accounts you need
> >> > to setup to contribute (gerrit, launchpad, OpenStack foundation
> >> account). Not all
> >> > teams will use some common documentation, but the point is one or more
> >> projects will use
> >> > them. Having the common documentation worked on by various projects
> >> will better help
> >> > prevent duplicated efforts, inconsistent documentation, and hopefully
> >> just more
> >> > accurate information.
> >> >
> >> > A team might use special tools to do their work. These can also be
> >> integrated in this idea
> >> > as well.
> >> >
> >> > Once we have common documentation we can have something like:
> >> > 1. Choose your own adventure: I want to contribute by code
> >> > 2. What service type are you interested in? (Database, Block storage,
> >> compute)
> >> > 3. Here’s step-by-step common documentation to setting up Git, IRC,
> >> Mailing Lists,
> >> > Accounts, etc.
> >> > 4. A service type project might choose to also include additional
> >> documentation in that
> >> > flow for special tools, etc.
> >> >
> >> > Important things to note in this flow:
> >> > * How do you want to contribute?
> >> > * Here are **clear** names that identify the team. Not code names like
> >> Cloud Kitty, Cinder,
> >> > etc.
> >> > * The documentation should really aim to not be daunting:
> >> > * Someone should be able to glance at it and feel like they can finish
> >> things in five minutes.
> >> > Not be yet another tab left in their browser that they’ll eventually
> >> forget about
> >> > * No wall of text!
> >> > * Use screen shots
> >> > * Avoid covering every issue you could hit along the way.
> >> >
> >> > ## Examples of More Simple Documentation
> >> > I worked on some documentation for the Upstream University preparation
> >> that has received
> >> > excellent feedback meet close to these suggestions:
> >> > * IRC [1]
> >> > * Git [2]
> >> > * Account Setup [3]
> >> >
> >> > ## 500 Feet Birds Eye view
> >> > There will be a Contributor landing page on the openstack.org website.
> >> Existing contributors
> >> > will find reference links to quickly jump to things. New contributors
> >> will find a banner
> >> > at the top of the page to direct them to the choose your own adventure
> >> to contributing to
> >> > OpenStack, with ordered documentation flow that reuses existing
> >> documentation when
> >> > necessary. Picture also a progress bar somewhere to show how close you
> >> are to being ready
> >> > to contribute to whatever team. Of course there are a lot of other
> >> fancy things we can come
> >> > up with, but I think getting something up as an initial pass would be
> >> better than what we
> >> > have today.
> >> >
> >> > Here's an example of what the sections/chapters could look like:
> >> >
> >> > - Code
> >> > * Volumes (Cinder)
> >> > * IRC
> >> > * Git
> >> > * Account Setup
> >> > * Generating Configs
> >> > * Compute (Nova)
> >> > * IRC
> >> > * Git
> >> > * Account Setup
> >> > * Something about hypervisors (matrix?)
> >> > - Use Cases
> >> > * Products (Product working group)
> >> > * IRC
> >> > * Git
> >> > * Use Case format
> >> >
> >> > There are some rough mock up ideas [4]. Probably Sphinx will be fine
> >> for this. Potentially
> >> > we could use this content for conference lunch and learns, upstream
> >> university, and
> >> > the on-boarding events at the Forum. What do you all think?
> >> >
> >> > [1] - http://docs.openstack.org/upstream-training/irc.html
> >> > [2] - http://docs.openstack.org/upstream-training/git.html
> >> > [3] - http://docs.openstack.org/upstream-training/accounts.html
> >> > [4] - https://www.dropbox.com/s/o46xh1cp0sv0045/OpenStack%20contri
> >> butor%20portal.pdf?dl=0
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> User-committee mailing list
> >> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > User-committee mailing list
> > User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
> >
> >
>