Hi all, one thing that we need to be a little careful with (I think) is updates in donated content. Most of the donated content will probably be in Powerpoint format, which is fine if it is donated, converted and then retired in Powerpoint format. However there are a few scenarios where updates to Powerpoints might become necessary: - donated content could potentially be updated by the donor and the updated version sent as well (is there a legal question in here potentially?) - someone uses the donated content and creates updates before conversion is finished - ... At that point, we have the issue of having binary files in version control again.
That is all manageable I'm sure, but we should put some thought into it up front I think. Best regards, Sönke On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:11 PM Hans-Peter Zorn <hz...@inovex.de> wrote: > > Hi, > thanks Lars for bringing this up. > So, I would also propose a special area or a separate repo for donated > content. On the one hand, material in this area could be taken „as is“ for > anyone who wants to use it for trainings. On the other hand the material can > be consolidated over time in the main/official training material set. This > could be converting slides or cherr-picking text and images or just as > inspiration. > > Another option would be to put this into a complete separate (company) repo > and to create pull-requests after review/discussion. > > Kind regards, > Hans-Peter > > > Am 11.03.2019 um 17:22 schrieb Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com>: > > > > Another thing I wanted to bring up is donation of existing content. > > > > We have (partial) trainings on HBase, Hadoop ecosystem basics, Kafka and a > > few other minor things ready. But they are PowerPoint. > > > > The colleagues from inovex have their own existing material, also in > > PowerPoint. > > > > I _hope_ that we'd get other material as well. > > > > Do we want to accept material no matter the format? > > Do we require it to be in a (yet to be decided) canonical format? > > Does it need to go through a normal "proper" review? > > > > I thought about this for a while and it comes back to a point we talked > > about in another thread: > > Do we have proper releases or do we just tag various trainings with various > > maturities? > > > > I could imagine a "staging" area for donated material and then a "beta" and > > a "ga" layer. Or some other verbiage (could even follow the ASF model of > > having "podlings" which can graduate). > > > > Either way: Opinions? > > > > I'm looking forward to actually working with some content ;-) > -- Sönke Liebau Partner Tel. +49 179 7940878 OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880 Wedel - Germany
