| Table of Contents | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Cedric Ollivier This presentation is fully unclear and looks like an overseed of activities done by other contributors.
The documentation build framework is already in place and follows the classical opensource practices in place in ONAP, ODL, etc. All the changes done in Anuket is already shared with ONAP doc PTL.
The current model works, based on PR and I would rather suggest a global LFN initiative as discussed in ONAP and now in TAC.
Look and feel of Anuket documentation is rather in charge of LFN (html part) and GSMA (pdf part). Idealy on community side, it's just one or 2 lines in 8 conf.py files ... 5 min work.
Yes,
- proofreading must be an action for all contributors in CNTT (see the first release plannings). It shouldn't be set in a specific project.
- technical content is about the stream itself
My recommendations would be to focus here on the files (gov, field trials, etc.) not tracked by any existing stream and which are currently obsolete ; to TSC to care about meritocraty about all reports especially about doc.
If we need a room to discuss latest sphinx/rst proposals, RA1 has been the main Anuket room. We could use Weekly technical discuss if we stop cancelling it and if we stop conflicting our meetings.
Introduction
Both the Specifications and the implementation projects in Anuket have documentation produced in different style and different templates. The structure of the final documentation is not well designed and calls for rethink on how the documents are organized. This requires a team which feels responsible for the different pieces of documentation and works for a consistent representation of them in the overall Anuket documentation.
...
Committers (proposal)
...
)
...
- Georg Kunz
- Scot Steele
- Karine Sevilla (not confirmed)
...