I have created a playground repo[1] where I created a sample structure. This is most likely far from perfect but it helped me a bit to think about the use-cases.
It's designed as one big monorepo and it has a few "components": * site * content * tools * "trainings" Site: This is just the website Content: This contains all our content and has various subsections for "staged" content (e.g. donated PPTs) as well as our "core" data, in multiple languages. Tools: This contains various tools (e.g. scripts, maven things etc.) "Trainings": This is the one I like the least (especially the name) but I envision that we can create one coherent "training" (e.g. "Data Ingestion") out of parts of the "content" folder (e.g. combine NiFi with Kafka and Sqoop into one "Data Ingestion" training). I'm happy to incorporate feedback but I'm also happy to give everyone commit access. Cheers, Lars [1] <https://github.com/opencore/training-playground> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 6:28 PM Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > On Mar 14, 2019, at 5:07 AM, Sönke Liebau > > <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.INVALID> > wrote: > > > > 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. > > Still, the donation was made in ppt format and we need to keep track of > its provenance. Having donations in a separate "donations" part of the > repository will make it easy to track, regardless of what we next do with > it. > > I agree with Hans-Peter that the material might be usable as is, or parts > might be extracted and used in combination with other works. As long as the > material is appropriately attributed, all of this is fine under the ALv2. > > I'd expect that some of the material will be further processed to convert > it to canonical format and combined with other material into aggregate > works. All fine from a licensing viewpoint. > > > 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?) > > No issues. As long as we have some way to name the content so it's easy to > find "the original" and "the updated versions" I don't see any logistical > issues either. > > > - someone uses the donated content and creates updates before > > conversion is finished > > No issues. > > > - ... > > At that point, we have the issue of having binary files in version > > control again. > > If a work is directly editable, it is not binary. So I'd argue (with > anyone who has a different opinion ;-) that files with .ppt, .odt, and > other file types are source files because there are editors for them. > > > > 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. > > I like the idea of having a separate "contributions" part of the > repository. A PR requesting a new addition here should be vetted for > provenance before updating the repository. And we should have a naming > scheme to allow updates by adding new versions instead of replacing them. > Makes it easier to track history if all versions are simultaneously > available. > > Regards, > > Craig > >> > >> 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 > > Craig L Russell > Secretary, Apache Software Foundation > c...@apache.org <mailto:c...@apache.org> http://db.apache.org/jdo < > http://db.apache.org/jdo> >
