[WIP]Add a training & support page#1604
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Celeste Horgan <celeste@cncf.io>
content/support-training.html
Outdated
| <h2>Training</h2> | ||
| <p> | ||
| These training resources are created and delivered independently | ||
| by members of the Prometheus project team. Note that these do operate for a fee. This list is provided in alphabetical order. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are all independent of the project, even if some of the individuals involved happen to be on -team. We shouldn't be promoting any one course over any other.
I think we should only be providing plain links, as we presently do with the commercial support list.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are all independent of the project, even if some of the individuals involved happen to be on -team. We shouldn't be promoting any one course over any other.
Yeah, I would just say that it's third-party trainings that are not officially endorsed by the Prometheus project.
I think we should only be providing plain links, as we presently do with the commercial support list.
I don't mind this one either way, but I do like the company logo boxes in the Commercial Support section below at least.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@brian-brazil @juliusv How about:
These training resources are created and delivered by independent third parties. They operate for a fee. This list is provided in alphabetical order.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not all of them have a fee.
My concerns still stand - we shouldn't be promoting any one course over any other. In addition from a legal standpoint the Robust Perception training is not from me personally.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah true, the first one in the RP series is a free training.
My concerns still stand - we shouldn't be promoting any one course over any other.
I guess you mean getting rid of the statement that says that they're delivered by Prometheus team members? I think I agree... as long as people fulfill the requirements below for adding a course, we shouldn't be the judges here (too much potential for commercial conflict of interest).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's better, but the blurbs are still there. I don't want to have to police the wording of companies marketing content, as that's tricky from an impartiality standpoint. It'd also end up pretty bloated on the page. There should only be a list of organisation names.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ahh, I see. I misunderstood your comment. Check the latest commit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The headlines are still there, it should only be the company names. Otherwise RP could request for example an entry for each of our 9 courses.
|
I like this overall! Probably we should then remove the list in the Commercial Support section on the Community page, and instead link to this new page from there. |
Signed-off-by: Celeste Horgan <celeste@cncf.io>
celestehorgan
force-pushed
the
add-training-page
branch
from
c57ba04 to
da156c1
Compare
Signed-off-by: Celeste Horgan <celeste@cncf.io>
Signed-off-by: Celeste Horgan <celeste@cncf.io>
Signed-off-by: Celeste Horgan <celeste@cncf.io>
content/support-training.html
Outdated
| </div> | ||
|
|
||
| <div class="col-md-6 doc-content"> | ||
| <!-- NOTE: WIP --> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd just not mention this, the standard is currently applied is that you send a PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why would we not give some expectations for those PRs so they arrive in better shape before the first review round?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't ask for e.g. linkedin pages though, this is proposing new requirements that I don't see a need for.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think those requirements are pretty reasonable to add / include though. It doesn't have to be specifically LinkedIn of course, but that's also not how I read the wording.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the course is instructor led, you must provide credentials (a link to your LinkedIn profile or resume will suffice)
that is strongly suggested
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, it doesn't need to be LinkedIn. But asking for some form of background info about an instructor or individual consultant who wants to add themselves to our site makes sense, no?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In principle, but the practicalities are problematic. For example I'm not sure if the SaaS that RP uses for our training supports this.
I think this is something that should be at most guidance to vendors on how to have a good landing page, not anything we actually try to enforce.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, if it's reworded from a requirement to recommendation, that would also be fine with me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is a case of trying to find a technical solution to a social problem, in effect lawyering a hypothetical issue into a possible blocker.
Prometheus tends to work as a consensus-based project in which there's acceptable uncertainty space to operate in. Listing an example is not mandating a requirement.
If we try to lawyer every corner case, we will not get anything done in sane time frames.
If we prevent any changes, there is no way to build up new operational guidelines.
And: If today we got a PR with a new company being listed, we would do some due diligence anyway. So there is both precedent and implicit consensus for having requirements and not just merging anything.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As presently written in this PR, these would be new hard requirements.
So there is both precedent and implicit consensus for having requirements and not just merging anything.
The precedent I've seen is that there is no bar - beyond someone asking to be listed. One of the current entries was added at a time when their website made no mention of that company providing Prometheus services.
If a PR looks weird I'll certainly double check with the author, but I won't reject it.
Signed-off-by: Celeste Horgan <celeste@cncf.io>
|
I see the marketing blurbs were now removed in the last commit. @brian-brazil is this good to merge now? |
|
It still contains a blurb for RP, a course name for LF, and is still adding new hard requirements for listing that even several existing listings do not meet. |
|
Ok, I would personally prefer to not be that pedantic about it, but in the interest of getting this merged without veto, @celestehorgan let's maybe minimalize it even further and just have company names + links for the courses, and remove the all requirements for now? I would still like to have something like that again later, but maybe then we can discuss that separately. |
|
@juliusv That sounds like a good plan. I'll submit a new commit in an hour or so. |
|
@celestehorgan Any updates on the last commit to remove the blurbs + requirements? Otherwise I'm also happy to make those last changes myself if you're ok with it. |
Signed-off-by: Celeste Horgan <celeste@cncf.io>
|
@juliusv :( apologies for the delay, see the latest commit. |
|
@celestehorgan Thanks! Ah, now the latest commit also removed the whole "Add a resource" section that is linked to at the top. I think that section is definitely good to keep starting from "To submit, open a pull request against...", only the new requirements were disputed. |
Signed-off-by: Celeste Horgan <celeste@cncf.io>
|
Updated! |
|
Thanks! I think this looks good now. @brian-brazil all ok? |
| <div class="panel panel-default"> | ||
| <div class="panel-body"> | ||
| <a href="https://training.robustperception.io/" target="_blank"> | ||
| <h3>Learn how to Monitor with Prometheus</h3> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is still a marketing blurb.
The only text we should have here is the organisation names.
|
Just in the interest of getting things done[tm], I'll merge this for now and send an immediate follow-up to remove the still-controversial items. |
I just wanted to remove the marketing blurbs as requested in #1604, but while doing that I noticed that the current HTML wasn't using Bootstrap validly (the only valid children of rows are cols, not containers), so I changed that around everywhere as well, and also fixed the footer, which wasn't captured in its usual non-fluid container. Signed-off-by: Julius Volz <julius.volz@gmail.com>
* Training & Support page fixups / remove marketing blurbs I just wanted to remove the marketing blurbs as requested in #1604, but while doing that I noticed that the current HTML wasn't using Bootstrap validly (the only valid children of rows are cols, not containers), so I changed that around everywhere as well, and also fixed the footer, which wasn't captured in its usual non-fluid container. Signed-off-by: Julius Volz <julius.volz@gmail.com> * Fix courses ordering Signed-off-by: Julius Volz <julius.volz@gmail.com>
5 participants
Closes #1599.
Todo: