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.
