On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Patrick McGarry wrote: > I think I'm going to take this forward in baby steps. I'm going to collect > blueprints via the normal pathway and then just manually capture the data in > ether pads when I populate the schedule. For J I'll just direct people > directly to ether pads (assuming there is no major objection). Are you worried about the documented workflow and tooling in the wiki, or just want to start with small changes to the process? It's also the copying part and most-empty blueprints that I suspect we can avoid without loss of value. I'm curious if we go super-light on the tooling if we'll find that there are parts we miss or not. Any other thoughts? sage > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > On 02/05/2015 02:50 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > I wonder if we should simplify the cds workflow a > bit to go straight to an > etherpad outline of the blueprint instead of the > wiki blueprint doc. I > find it a bit disorienting to be flipping between > the two, and after the > fact find it frustrating that there isn't a single > reference to go back to > for the outcome of the session (you have to look at > both the pad and the > bp). > > Perhaps just using the pad from the get-go will > streamline things a bit > and make it a little more lightweight? What does > everyone think? > > > Sounds good to me. I've also wished there were a single location to > capture a session; searching through the wiki for etherpads that > aren't linked from the blueprint is a pain. > > Josh > > > > > -- > > Best Regards, > > Patrick McGarry > Director Ceph Community || Red Hat > http://ceph.com || http://community.redhat.com > @scuttlemonkey || @ceph > >
