Hi Lars, > On Mar 11, 2019, at 9:22 AM, Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Another thing I wanted to bring up is donation of existing content. > > We have (partial) trainings on HBase, Hadoop ecosystem basics, Kafka and a > few other minor things ready. But they are PowerPoint. > > The colleagues from inovex have their own existing material, also in > PowerPoint. > > I _hope_ that we'd get other material as well.
I have a number of presentations that are written in OpenOffice .odp and then exported as .pdf for use. > > Do we want to accept material no matter the format? I think that would make it easier for contributors. > Do we require it to be in a (yet to be decided) canonical format? I would hope that the tooling would allow material to be transformed to and from a few formats into whatever "canonical" format we choose. > Does it need to go through a normal "proper" review? Yes; either a software grant or icla would normally be the standard to accept an original work. Minor edits to existing presentations would have a different standard. It might make sense for us to have a "contributions" part of the project and then transform and move them to where we want to distribute the canonical form, organized into courses that included presentations, labs, feedback (tests) etc. > > I thought about this for a while and it comes back to a point we talked > about in another thread: > Do we have proper releases or do we just tag various trainings with various > maturities? This might be a separate thread from this one, but releases are actually kind of a big deal here at Apache. There is a lot of process to make releases. In order to rationalize our effort it might make sense to have a "core" which contains all of the tooling for the project and groups of source materials (courses) that the tools would operate on. Organizing the groups into collections of courses might allow us to release the collections individually. We could also encourage outside groups to use their own repositories to store content that our core tools would process. The outside groups could have their own contribution/editing/release process distinct from the Apache project. What the tooling would specify is the organization of the courses. Probably a directory structure with specifically named subdirectories with canonical naming scheme for the various bits of what we might call courses. Have we thought of what to call the various parts of the training process? Craig > > I could imagine a "staging" area for donated material and then a "beta" and > a "ga" layer. Or some other verbiage (could even follow the ASF model of > having "podlings" which can graduate). > > Either way: Opinions? > > I'm looking forward to actually working with some content ;-) Craig L Russell c...@apache.org
