#opendaylight-docs: docs

Meeting summary

1. peer review of docs (colindixon, 20:16:24)
   1. how big should groups be? (colindixon, 20:16:46)
   2. at least 2 people, probably more for redundancy, 4 seems like a good number for now (colindixon, 20:17:01)
   3. who should go into a group (colindixon, 20:17:07)
   4. one axis: responsiveness: at least 2 responsive projeccts per group b/c that means people will actually ge reviews and not get punished (colindixon, 20:17:34)
   5. another axis: amount of docs: we don't want one project with a novel worth of docs and others with 100 words (colindixon, 20:17:56)
   6. https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/documentation/2017-February/001102.html the e-mail kicking this offf (colindixon, 20:20:14)
   7. what do people review? just patches as they come in or all of the other project's docs new and old? (colindixon, 20:20:38)
   8. my guess is that the latter is a lot better and not much harder (colindixon, 20:20:48)
   9. zxiiro worries that we might end up with one person in each group doing all or almost all of the reviewing (colindixon, 20:21:04)
   10. colindixon says he's not sure how to deal with that, but maybe if we keep groups small-ish that's fine (colindixon, 20:22:00)
   11. colindixon notes that if we have fewer than half of projects being responsive, we may need larger groups than 4 if we still want to have 2 responsive projects per group (colindixon, 20:22:58)
   12. zxiiro suggests kicking this off at M1 or M2 would be better than later and we could do that in NItrogen (colindixon, 20:24:44)
   13. https://meetings.opendaylight.org/opendaylight-docs/2017/docs/ (colindixon, 20:25:34)
   14. how do we want to bin project types, e.g., kernel vs. app vs. protocol vs. … (colindixon, 20:27:34)
   15. it probably makes sense to have similar projects in each docs group, jsut becuase they'll have some idea of the concerns (colindixon, 20:27:54)
   16. in the longer run, you might want some variation, but for now probably anything is fine (colindixon, 20:28:22)

Action items

1. (none)

People present (lines said)

1. colindixon (19)
2. odl_meetbot (3)