Add Documentation PR section to the issue template

[annajung]

As we kick off the 1.20 release, there has been a discussion with the Enhancement team and Docs team on improving the current process of tracking all the necessary release requirements from Enhancement owners.

Based on the discussion, @kikisdeliveryservice (Enhancement lead) and I (Docs lead) believe that adding a docs section in the issue template would help. This will make sure Enhancement owners are aware of docs requirements earlier in the process when an issue is created (An item from 1.17 retro) and help both the enhancement/docs team to not dig through all the comments to figure out where docs PR(s) were shared.

/assign @mrbobbytables @jeremyrickard @justaugustus @johnbelamaric
/hold
for feedback

Example: #757

[mrbobbytables]

With docs PRs, they're often tied to the specific release. It might be better to have something like:

docs PR:
 - alpha:
 - beta:
 - stable:

One other thought... - that line in #757 was added by @kikisdeliveryservice by editing the issue. So few folks go back and edit the issue themselves, I'm not how much traction it will see unless it's docs going back and updating it on behalf of them =/

[annajung]

@mrbobbytables Hey Bob! Thanks for that feedback and I agree that having alpha/beta/stable makes more sense. I can add that in

I also agree that there isn't much we can do for the existing enhancement other than adding the docs sections ourselves. We can also encourage the enhancement owners to share docs PR by updating the description since it's so easily lost by all the pings/comments.

@kikisdeliveryservice also mentioned that the enhancement team can help to update the description as well

we can make this bit more solid by editing the role handbook as well to make sure both teams ask the enhancement owner to edit the description with k/k PRs k/website PRs and etc. Would that work?

[kikisdeliveryservice]

Overall, I'm on the fence bc I don't think entire teams need description edit access - that feels like something that the leads should be doing as that access is non-trivial.

The template update to me serves the primary purpose of making people aware immediately that docs might be required as opposed to something that only gets mentioned via pings.

[annajung]

Sure, we can leave the editing to the enhancement owners and/or leads, not the entire team.

But the overall the template itself will serve that purpose for the new enhancements :)

[kikisdeliveryservice]

But the overall the template itself will serve that purpose for the new enhancements :)

Agree. I'll let other people chime in but I'm pro-make the description useful so:

/lgtm

As a note: people already started using the Discussion Field we added, so they do read the template 👍

[annajung]

Hi @mrbobbytables @jeremyrickard @justaugustus @johnbelamaric, just a friendly ping to take a look at this when you can! :D

[lasomethingsomething]

/assign @LappleApple

[mrbobbytables]

Thanks for the reminder ping!
I'm okay with moving this forward 👍
Just would like some of the other subproject owners to sign off as well :)

[justaugustus]

/lgtm
/approve
/hold cancel

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: annajung, justaugustus

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [justaugustus]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[justaugustus]

For a potential follow-up, we could maybe do:

Stages

• Alpha
  • KEP update PR:
  • Docs (k/website) update:
  • Test updates:
  • Foo:
  • Bar:
  • Baz:
• Beta
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...
• Stable
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...