Document reviewer guidelines for reference architectures

Expected sections in the actual ref architecture.

Projects and Usage
TLDR; Synopsis
- Use Cases as Sub-items
Architecture
- Mandatory diagram with high quality image and specific format accepted
- Potentially
What works well
What needs improvement, Challenges, Risks
Key Takeaways, Lessons Learned
Optionally a more detailed journey with info on intermediate steps and things that got dropped on the way

Two possible reference submissions to draft guidelines from:

@garry-cairns

To be followed up by @garry-cairns + @castrojo

@castrojo

@castrojo we have a doc with this content right? Can you link it here?

@castrojo

@castrojo can you drop the link to the doc you worked on here?

As discussed today, we should expose the reviewer guidelines to people interest in submitting new architectures. This is a good target, similar to what kubecon is sharing regarding CFP reviews.
https://events.linuxfoundation.org/kubecon-cloudnativecon-north-america/program/submission-reviewer-guidelines/#star-ratings-evaluation-mode

These would also be very helpful when pointing back submitters to what we look for when the submissions are not necessarily on point.

Want me to still cut this down for this? #112

Edit: Should I make the agents instructions another document? One file for humans and one for agentds?

Navigation Menu