During the DISCUSS and VOTE threads I tried to postpone any discussion about the actual content and technical bits but now would be a great time to start.
I know that Dmitriy was eager to get started and Christofer also explained his workflow briefly. Maybe you could go into more detail? Christofer demonstrated his own tooling to us and I really liked it. This could be a great start. I'm sorry this is going to be a bit longer and maybe a bit "rambling". Take it as you will. I just needed to write it down once :) When we've done trainings so far they usually consist of a couple of things: * Slides (for us usually in Powerpoint) * Whiteboard sessions (usually the most interesting parts because they usually are the result of attendee feedback/questions) * Labs (the actual content, things that attendees need to "solve"/do) * Lab setup (especially for the larger distributed systems getting a realistic setup of the tools itself for all attendees isn't trivia I'm sure I'm missing something. What should our scope be? Our initial idea centered around Slides and Labs. It would be great to also have something that makes the Labs setup easier but in our experience that's pretty hard (e.g. corporate firewalls don't allow access to X or Y) to make generic (that shouldn't stop us from trying!) Slides: I'd love to have a workflow where I can design slides entirelly in Asciidoc. That makes them easily versionable and composable. Should we allow multiple formats? If we decide on a text-only format and someone donates a bunch of courses in Powerpoint. Would we deny that? Labs: Similarly for Labs we've had a good experience with (e.g.) https://antora.org/ which also allows to create documentation in Asciidoc and create a website out of it. But there's lots of ideas on how to improve this (e.g. Notebooks in Zeppelin) and it'll also be way different depending on the training topic. Audience/Customizability/Composability I would assume that our trainings will also be used by non-commercial folks or people needing to give a training in-house at their companies. For them a prepared "deck" with ASF branding is fine but others might want to incorporate these slides into their own work (see the Legal thread) and also compose their own out of smaller "components". So for me a good thing would be if we produce smaller "chapters" of things that can then be composed however one would like and to make our product customizabile (e.g. custom header, footer, background colors etc.) Apache vs. non-Apache // Product vs. non-product I wouldn't want to limit us to Apache products. I don't see a reason not to also talk about 3rd party tools. Especially if they are tightly integrated into the ecosystem (e.g. the ELK stack is often used alongside Hadoop). I also don't see a reason to only focus on single products. A training could focus on "IoT" and cover lots of products. In a similar vein it doesn't always have to be technical products. I've already been approached from multiple people about "The Apache Way" presentations. Now whether they make more sense in ComDev is to be decided. Maybe Sharan can weigh in? Thanks, Lars
