Review Product People Section

[rrrutledge]

• Thank you for this work, @MaineC!
• Fixed some typos.
• @MaineC what future changes do you have planned?
• I think that, in-general, these articles could be split up so that each is more targeted. With more targeted segments we may find there's enough overlap to merge some articles here into existing Learning Path segments or patterns and just link to them.
• We should decide on what checkpoint/level would we like for this work to make it to the website.

[MaineC]

what future changes do you have planned?

At some point I would like to address some of the open points that I mentioned at the original pull request, like https://github.com/InnerSourceCommons/InnerSourceLearningPath/pull/520#discussion_r1064174356 - however right now I'm lacking the time to thoroughly add those points in.

With more targeted segments we may find there's enough overlap to merge some articles here into existing Learning Path segments or patterns and just link to them.

That may well be possible.

One goal I had in mind with creating this segment (and I believe, there's still room for improvement): I wanted to create a segment, that people who have no background using version control can watch and understand. I also wanted to focus on providing input where InnerSource touches their work - and where their skills can help InnerSource projects.

The Introduction segment that we have to me seems a bit too introductory for someone who wants to dig deeper and understand the big picture. However the contributor and trusted committer segments have too many pieces that focus on the mechanics of coding. Then we have the product owner segment - but product owners are a role specific to how teams use specific agile methodologies...

We should decide on what checkpoint/level would we like for this work to make it to the website.

That is a good question indeed. In particular as when I tested the content one learning was that for the target group I have in mind, video snippets + workbook will likely not be sufficient. Interactivity and being able to directly put the learnings in context proved very helpful. Also there were many more and more diverse questions than what I'm used to from trainings targeting people with some level of software engineering background.

[rrrutledge]

Thanks, @MaineC . There are a lot of considerations! Maybe think through and then share how can we move forward?