GitOps media fact-checking team & GitOps community resources page #99
Replies: 5 comments 5 replies
-
|
Hey @scottrigby, I would be happy to participate for the Some personal thoughts about a resource list
Possible structure of a resource list
I am not sure if these are necessary information and what information are also interesting like the type of the resource, date or something else. What do you think about my thoughts? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Does this include courses available on learning platforms such as Pluralsight? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yeah, thats on of the questions we should answer in this discussion as mentioned in my thoughts. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi @mschwrdtnr 👋 appreciate the thoughtful reply 🙂
If it helps unblock anything I/we can make process suggestions, but ultimately IMO our processes should be nimble and easy to participate in have discussion around. In lieu of something else that feels better, we could (in any order):
re criteria: I think we could/should include any resource using the term "GitOps" in the title or content. Regardless of whether the term used purely for marketing purposes, or if others are genuinely attempting to put forth a different definition/standard, we should attempt to assume nothing but be as factual as possible. The current way I know to factually assess these is to see how the resource recommendations relate to the principles. For example, do they define GitOps as anything that uses Git in automation of any kind?
I think any attempt would be good here to keep the ball rolling. Keep it simple so others can pick up where one person leaves off. We can also set an activity/absent policy like on other content for the group (if someone "claims" a task, but drops off for a week or something with no updates, someone else can pick back up on it). If we attempt to engage the authors, it would then be up to the authors whether they wish to update their materials in any way.
I like it. Let's just make sure we stay utilitarian, and set up as little busy-work as possible for folks to collaborate and achieve the goal. GitOps is a hot topic, so we'll need more hands to meet the demand. So maybe a rule of thumb is just add whatever feels useful at a glance without becoming overwhelming? Building on what you suggested, how about something like this (ordered by date most to least recent): Resources:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Love it, as long a we can do it with the right attitude and build bridges not create walls I think it's great. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Maybe better name – "GitOps media fact-checking team"? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I think that this could be part of a weekly "newsletter"? This media team can write a sort of "newsletter" that has a "fact checking" section. Like 'this week in gitops' |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Updated discussion title and description. This team's work is already in process. If anyone would like to join this team, reach out to us 🕵️ https://github.com/cncf/tag-app-delivery/tree/main/gitops-wg#community |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'd love to help out with the resources page or "this week in GitOps" (TWiG?). I got reminded of this discussion reading @rothgar's awesome blog post on infrastructure as software and I'd love for this group to help spread the word on such great content. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
📣 Update: New GitOps Community Resources Page!We now have a GitOps Community Resources Page in the project repo: https://github.com/open-gitops/project/blob/main/RESOURCES.md 🎉 Everyone please take a look, and open PRs to add GitOps-related content! 👀✍️ Thanks to @samueltauil for putting the page together, it looks great 🤓💖 (also added to description at the top) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
📣 Update: New GitOps Community Resources Page!
We now have a GitOps Community Resources Page in the project repo: https://github.com/open-gitops/project/blob/main/RESOURCES.md 🎉
Everyone please take a look, and open PRs to add GitOps-related content! 👀✍️
Thanks to @samueltauil for putting the page together, it looks great 🤓💖
To-do
Original issue
Hi everyone 👋
Motivation
Blog posts (and other resources like videos, talks, etc) on GitOps continue to be posted that do not align with the GitOps Principles officially published by the CNCF GitOps Working Group in October 2021 (see v1.0.0). A number of these resources seem to draw from older blog posts and resources that were around before the GitOps principles, and similarly, define GitOps totally different than the principles that now have nearly unilateral support across major cloud providers and other organizations.
GitOps media fact-checking research team
Perhaps a GitOps fact-checking team could help this issue. The team's goal could be to promote accurate info about GitOps. This could be done through fact-checking, comparing writings and other resources to the principles, making these findings transparent, and contacting authors to invite them to make updates or addendums to their resources. I believe this aligns with the goals listed in the GitOps Working Group charter: https://github.com/cncf/tag-app-delivery/blob/main/gitops-wg/charter.md#goals
GitOps community resources page
Perhaps we can also add a "GitOps community resources" page in one of the https://github.com/open-gitops repos, which lists blog posts and other resources that "need review" or "need revising or addendum" (since v1.0.0 of the GitOps principles was published). This would allow others to open PRs to list their published material too, and the PR review process could from that point forward be the process for checking the accuracy of information on GitOps in those resources.
WDYT?
It's important to note CNCF, it's TAGs or it's Working Groups do not have authority over ALL PEOPLE AND THINGS. So I suggest we take a warm, supportive – and not holier than thou – approach rather than anything that could feel like "you're wrong and we somehow have the power to make you change your material".
The WG and OpenGitOps project are meant to be open to anyone to participate on all levels, including reevaluating and proposing changes to the GitOps Principles as needed over time. I would like to see us invite folks to join us in this activity when it appears that they may have a different take, and to make them feel free to connect with us to revise posts they've already written. I hope people already feel free to connect with us during the process of creating or at least before publishing on GitOps if they wish, but maybe this team can help make this general invitation – to use the GitOps WG and OpenGitOps project as a resource – more widely known.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions