[Pulp-dev] De-duplicating Demo Content

Wed Oct 4 10:11:35 UTC 2017

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:

> I think it is important to keep 2 sections:
> 1) Community updates - which would tackle community contributions and
> everything related to the spread of our project awareness.
> 2) Release updates- which would take care of RFEs, bugfixes, issues,
> releases, future plans we are heading to, etc
>

> Maybe as a starting point we should define as a team what we expect to
> have in those 2 sections, since it might turn out everyone would have its
> different expectations.
>

+1 on Ina's suggestion. I also see the value in having both the sections
during sprint demo.

>
>
>
>
> --------
> Regards,
>
> Ina Panova
> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
>
> "Do not go where the path may lead,
>  go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I've thought about this some more and given my role as the community
>> manager, I would like to host the demos and deliver the content I have
>> planned. This is what I see from other projects like Foreman. This content
>> regularly conflicts with the "State of Pulp" content. The YouTube live
>> demos are something I started for Pulp, and something I would like to stay
>> involved with.
>>
>> I want to go back to @asmacdo's idea of renaming the State of Pulp to
>> "Release Updates". You're welcome to deliver that or someone who does the
>> releases themselves would be good. Some feedback on this change would be
>> great.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brian
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, I'd be happy to do that. I do think there's plenty of room for a
>>> "What's happening with the technology" segment and a "What else is going on
>>> in the community" segment if you'd like to keep doing highlights there, but
>>> otherwise I am happy to take care of it.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The content you are describing is the same content I usually plan to
>>>> cover also. Then on the day-of we realize that we have the same content. I
>>>> think this is the root of the issue that is causing me to raise this
>>>> problem to begin with. Switching the name won't resolve it.
>>>>
>>>> In looking at a community like Forman for example, Greg, the community
>>>> manager, runs the demos and coordinates the content updates that you are
>>>> describing. I'm wondering why Pulp is doing something different.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like you want to deliver all of that content. That is ok with
>>>> me if you are also willing to run/coordinate/post the demos. Would that be
>>>> a way to solve this? We have docs here [0] about how to do that. Feedback
>>>> about this idea would be great.
>>>>
>>>> [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Demo_Notes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm happy to change the name of my section to something other than
>>>>> "State of Pulp", which isn't very descriptive. I want it to continue
>>>>> focusing on what's happening with the technology, such as releases, new
>>>>> initiatives getting started (new plugin for example), specific current
>>>>> problems (coredump on F26 for example), highlighting areas of investigation
>>>>> or planning (like when we were wrestling with how to support multi-arch
>>>>> container images), deprecations (no more EL6 for example), etc. "Tech
>>>>> Update" would be fine, or something similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 to "Release Updates" because it doesn't make an artificial
>>>>>> distinction between work done by Red Hat employees and work done by the
>>>>>> community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> During the sprint demos there are two sections which regularly (if
>>>>>>> not always) present redundant content: the State of Pulp update, and the
>>>>>>> Community Update. We need to combine or redefine these parts of our demos
>>>>>>> to not be redundant or compete for content to present in each section.
>>>>>>> Today the content was 100% redundant to the point where I entirely skipped
>>>>>>> the community update.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please send ideas or comments. Here are two options I can think of:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have the State of Pulp be renamed to 'Release Updates' and have that
>>>>>>> section talk about releases and any notable issues associated with them.
>>>>>>> This is the option I recommend.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only have a community update and have all content (release updates,
>>>>>>> community items, etc) all be delivered through that. I believe this is how
>>>>>>> most projects do it, but I would prefer the option above personally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Brian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael Hrivnak
>>>>>
>>>>> Principal Software Engineer, RHCE
>>>>>
>>>>> Red Hat
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Michael Hrivnak
>>>
>>> Principal Software Engineer, RHCE
>>>
>>> Red Hat
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20171004/b480df39/attachment.htm>