Hi! (I have originally sent this mail to the SRU team and the Technical Board, but Robie suggested it be discussed in the open. So, if you're one of the people receiving this mail for the second or third time, I apologize.)
I work on Ubuntu docs for Canonical, and I have a proposal for you. As you may have noticed, these past few months we've been working on consolidating all Ubuntu project docs (i.e. 'how Ubuntu is made' kind of docs) in one place. This includes stuff from other docs sets (various packaging guides, the Ubuntu Maintainers Handbook), internal docs, people's heads, etc. The goal is to have all this guidance easily accessible, navigable, and under one umbrella, so that both new and existing contributors and maintainers have better experience. We've been publishing fortnightly updates on our progress on Ubuntu Discourse. The last one (which includes links to all previous updates) is at [1]. The docs sources are in GitHub under the 'Ubuntu' org [2], and it's published through ReadTheDocs [3]. The URL is ugly now, but we'll change it to something like docs.ubuntu.com/project once it's less WIP. We'd like to include the SRU [4] and Governance docs [5] in that to streamline maintenance and also ensure the resulting project docs really do include all the docs. However, we understand both the Board and SRU require control over the content. That's perfectly understandable, and we have no intention of disrupting that. There are other such docs in the consolidated (GitHub) repo now: MIR and AA. In both cases, those teams want to have a final word, too. So, we set up a basic ACL using the standard CODEOWNERS file [6] (no PR that touches anything in 'their' part of the docs can be merged without their approval). This setup is what I'd like to offer the Board and SRU. I believe the case for consolidating all this content in one place is sound, and the CODEOWNERS setup ensures the content wouldn't be out of your team's control. The one potentially sticky point is that it's on GitHub, i.e. the involved people would need a GH account for the ACL to work. We can include people individually, which is what we've been doing so far. Special GitHub teams could also be set up for that purpose. (We've also been looking into auto-syncing LP -> GH teams, so this access control would continue to be automatically based on LP team membership; though there's still the thing that the service -- as it is available now -- is run by Canonical, so I'm not sure if that would be acceptable.) Anyway, please, let me know what you think. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. If there'd be no opposition to the plan, I'd take care of adding the respective team-member accounts to the repo and the CODEOWNERS file, and I'd also handle the migration (incl. setting up redirects). Thank you! [1] https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-project-docs-piloting-article-series/66522 [2] https://github.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-project-docs [3] https://canonical-ubuntu-project.readthedocs-hosted.com/ [4] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-governance-docs [5] https://launchpad.net/sru-docs [6] https://github.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-project-docs/blob/main/.github/CODEOWNERS Regards, -- Robert Krátký Sr. Technical Author Canonical Ltd.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
