Governance for review
by Karsten Wade
Hi all,
This email contains a link to the proposed governance, steps for how to
comment, some further thoughts from me, and a proposed timeline for
ratifying this governance.
# Proposed governance
I have drafted a first governance for the Op1st community, ready for
reading and comments in this pull request:
https://github.com/operate-first/community/pull/107
You can make comments directly in the "Files changed" view in GitHub, line
by line. Every sentence within a paragraph has its own line, making it
easier to comment directly.
# How to comment
Instructions for this are in this comment in the pull request:
https://github.com/operate-first/community/pull/107#issuecomment-989183317
# Thoughts about the sections
One section I forgot to include in the pull request is also in there as a
comment from me, the one that initiates the Community SIG and the
Operations SIG as the two starting community groups.
One of the most important sections of governance for folks is the
membership section. I think we need to plan for a membership scenario going
forward based on where we are, and for us to essentially consider everyone
as a member to start.
So congrats, most of you are therefore members, and are encouraged to join
one or both SIGs, once things are finished and ratified.
# Timeline
My proposal is we decide on this governance by consensus, the model for
that is spelled out in the governance.
Because we have no other way to decide things at this point, we are going
to do the strange thing of adopting consensus as the model for this
decision. This means, if you disagree you can try to convince all of us to
use a different decision model. If you agree, you are free to +1 this
section of my email.
08 Dec -- Proposed governance raised
15 Dec -- First call for consensus is made, giving a chance for any
blockers (-1) to be raised
18 Dec -- If consensus is reached, governance is adopted. If there are
blockers, we continue to work through them.
21 Dec -- If we still have blockers and have not reached consensus, then we
hold over to January 2022.
11 Jan -- Second call for consensus is made, regardless of open blockers.
Call for consensus at this point includes if the community is going to
proceed regardless of blockers, or for us to identify which blockers we
want to resolve.
Weekly until closed -- We move through the blockers or decide every week by
consensus to no longer try to work through a blocker.
Ultimately, anyone making a block is saying they are willing to leave if
they don't feel their blocker is resolved. So each of these consensus
points is a chance for the community to say if we want to continue working
this out or if we have reached consensus without the blocking person
included.
--
Karsten Wade [he/him/his] | Senior Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source Program Office (OSPO) : @redhatopen
The Open Source Way : https://theopensourceway.org
Operate First : https://operate-first.cloud
2 years, 12 months
Training content & courses: Repo or repos or branches or all the above
by Karsten Wade
All:
The team working on SRE training are ready to setup their repositories, and
Stephanie created this issue for opening the first repository:
https://github.com/operate-first/common/issues/39
We had a meeting today with the team who is going to be working in GitHub,
and we're not sure what is the best model to follow for repositories.
Please join us there to discuss what we want the repo(s) to look like. We
particularly need help from people with experience around automation
amongst multiple repositories.
Background
=========
Stephanie and anyone else, please fix any incorrect GitHub and modularity
thinking here, thanks.
As a community, we are creating a knowledge pool of modular course
materials. Modular here means, creating discrete pieces of content, each
explaining what, how, and why for a task. The learner might be a
contributor learning or reminding how to do the task; or the learner might
be a user taking a full SRE course. The same content can be used in both
cases, but placed into a context specific for the different learner type.
This content therefore is more than a Markdown file, it has inline or
metadata (labels, etc.) that means it can be organized to appear in
multiple learning pathways.
These multiple learning pathways currently are: SRE Learners, Open Source
Developers, Project Contributors, and Data Scientists and Data Engineers.
So if combining the pool with the number of learning path options, it could
be four separate learning paths with e.g. twelve modules per path. Those
modules would comprise existing modular content, combined with content
specific to the module that shapes the relationship to the learner persona.
An example of a single module might be, "How to use GitOps to make changes
to a live production cloud." It could have the how-to and sparse-why
content (useful for Project Contributors and Open Source Developers) from
one location (a repo?), which can be combined with the full what/how/why of
a beginner's viewpoint into a single ready-to-teach module.
That's already 48 unique combinations to cover four pathways, and within
those modules it might be 3x to 5x more when combining pieces to form a
specific module.
Is this a repos problem? A branching problem? A nesting folders problem?
Or something else?
Kind regards,
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade [he/him/his] | Senior Community Architect | @quaid
Red Hat Open Source Program Office (OSPO) : @redhatopen
The Open Source Way : https://theopensourceway.org
Operate First : https://operate-first.cloud
3 years
