Hi all, Just a quick update on how the contributor portal project will be organized.
We created a new subteam under the Documentation Project. This subteam (specialty team), led by Mike, will maintain the portal repo openstack/contributor-guide. Patches addressing this have been merged: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/Ib8062210854e1979aa1f56bd7c0f5af8e578decc Thanks, pk On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:13:46 -0700 Mike Perez <thin...@gmail.com> wrote: > # Contributor Portal Next Steps > > ## Landing Page Mock ups > * Current mock up: > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxMh9oiou2xMLVRvRWRFVklHa2c/view > * Limited click through mock up: > https://invis.io/CSDEZTBDJ#/252645774_Landing > > ## Todo > - [ ] thingee: A proposal for the *second level* of what the landing page > shows. > - [ ] thingee: Follow up with the Wes and Jimmy at the OpenStack Foundation > for design assistance. > > ## Communication To The Community > * [Initial > email](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-June/118877.html) > * [Initial full > thread](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-June/thread.html#118877) > > ## Highlights from PTG session > [OpenStack Etherpad](https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/contributor-portal) > > ### TLDR (big changes from discussion) > * Instead of all team on-boarding documentation living in a central > repository, it will still remain with the individual teams to maintain in > their own repository. General documentation (e.g. git, creating accounts, > gerrit setup, etc) will still live in this central repo. If you choose to > contribute by code for example and you pick a project, it will take you > through our general documentation, then the project’s specific documentation. > * This could lead to inconsistencies in documentation design? Confusion > for the reader being sent to different pages? > > ### General > * We can’t go based off services. Not everything people are contributing > to is a service, so they won't have anything corresponding in the > [service type authority > repo](http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/service-types-authority/tree/service-types.yaml). > There might be a field in projects.yaml that can help with this. > * Remind Thierry on the service type authority repo for > grouping/mapping project. > * Videos were considered, but they’re hard to keep up-to-date. > Previous Documentation PTL Alexandra Settle expressed that even > screenshots can get out of date real fast. > * Generate some kind of crash-course / cheatsheet content for people > who are used to GitHub but not familiar with Gerrit. Aspiers > volunteered for this and made this first pass [ethercalc > sheet](https://ethercalc.openstack.org/github-gerrit). > * Translation team needs to be included > * Provide documentation with how to edit the landing page, since the > source is being hosted on github (there are transition discussions in > place with the infra team and Jimmy) > * Help projects with creating their own contributor guides if they > need to. Think of something like Cookie cutter for setting up the > scaffolding for a new OpenStack project, but getting projects > contributor guides going. > > ### Upstream Institute > Attendees of the session we’re more in favor of projects keeping > their specific documentation owned in their repositories. As learned > from the centralize documentation problem > [1](http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/docs-specs/specs/pike/os-manuals-migration.html) > [2](https://doughellmann.com/blog/2017/08/24/stop-working-so-hard-scaling-open-source-community-practices/) > [3](https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/top-5-help-wanted.html#documentation-owners), > this is a good move. Upstream institute would then use whatever > general documentation is provided. If people get past that, we could > even suggest on-boarding to one of the [top 5 most wanted > help](https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/top-5-help-wanted.html)! > > ### User Committee > Lauren Sell worked with Melvin and others from the user committee to get their > requirements and perspective on the project. Here's an ether pad: > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/contributor-portal-user-section > > ### Mock Up Feedback > * Having the service types is great, but on the next level it would > be good to express the code name with a description of what the > project does. > * Combine in events OpenStack day, meetups, forum, ptg, etc. > (emphasize on in person thing) > > ### Bikeshed > * A word that combines code and documentation ("team(s)" was already > rejected) > > -- > Mike Perez __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
