[Pulp-dev] De-duplicating Demo Content

Wed Oct 4 14:26:27 UTC 2017

I agree that we want to highlight community contributions, but I don't
understand why we would want to separate them from other user facing
changes. As a user/developer watching the demo, it doesn't make a
difference to me where the content came from.

Here's what I'm thinking:

*Release updates*
 This section covers user facing changes. Presumably, each item would
couple with an item that is or will be in "release notes". This can be
changes from core devs or community members.
- important upcoming changes
- deprecations to start planning for
- big new features or changes being planned
- docs changes
- workflow demos (was: how other people are using pulp)

*Logistics*
I don't think all of this needs to be discussed in each demo, and might be
more appropriate for blog posts. To me, demos are content. Dates, TODOs,
etc mentioned in a video are hard to find later, and are easy to forget.
But when it makes sense, we should discuss the following topics:
- release schedule/plans
- what direction is the project going in general
- events such as conferences or meetups
- highlight channels of communication (email list, twitter, blog posts, etc)
- current known problems
- what is being prioritized or not and why
- key problems that need to be solved

*Contributor updates* - This section should discuss testing, tools,
workflows, refactors, etc. Things that affect developers, but not users.
This section should be at the end so uninterested users can drop out.
- things that need to be tested

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Preethi Thomas <pthomas at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171004/3ef5f880/attachment.htm>