Contributing
This is a small project maintained by one person, and it needs help. Every contribution is released under the same CC0 1.0 dedication as the rest of the repository. If you are unsure about anything, open the issue or pull request anyway.
Four ways to help
Listed in priority order; the call for collaborators has the full detail.
| Track | What you would do | Skills | Typical effort |
|---|---|---|---|
| Labs (the focus) | Write a hands-on lab for a chapter against the lab template | Python, plus the chapter’s framework | 4–12 hours self-contained; 12–20 with an external service; submitted as several small PRs |
| Instructional content review | Fact-check chapter text against current vendor documentation, review slides, check quiz-to-chapter mapping. Pick by topic on the Review menu | Subject expertise; no coding | 1–3 hours per finding |
| Certification mapping | Rate every chapter against an exam’s knowledge items (H/M/L/N), for example Google’s Generative AI Leader | Careful structured reading | Varies |
| Video library | Verify links still work and match their descriptions, or add curated entries | Judgment of what makes a good explanation | 15–30 minutes per link check |
How to contribute
- Browse the open issues and pick one labeled with your track (
track:labs,track:content-review,track:cert-mapping,track:video);good first issuemarks starting points. - Comment to say you are taking it, so nobody duplicates the work.
- Fork the repository and branch from
master, named<track>/<short-description>(for examplelabs/chapter-6-3c-etl). - Do the work against the issue’s definition of done.
- Open a pull request using the template and reference the issue with
Closes #<number>.
Keep each pull request to roughly 20 changed items or fewer; a full lab is expected to arrive as a sequence of small,
independently mergeable PRs. Review checks your work against the track’s checklist in
.github/REVIEW_CHECKLISTS.md. Expect a first response within a few
business days.
You can also start from an issue form: New lab, content review, certification mapping, or video entry.
What is accepted
Accepted: labs built against the template and rubric, evidence-backed content corrections, certification mappings that follow the rubric, and video entries that meet the curation standard. Not accepted: labs that do not run or diverge significantly from the template, changes to a chapter’s exam scope without first discussing it in an issue, unverified or uncredited video additions, and anything you do not hold clear rights to dedicate to the public domain.
Project documents
| Document | What it covers |
|---|---|
CONTRIBUTING.md |
Full contribution mechanics |
GOVERNANCE.md |
Who maintains the project and how decisions are made |
CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md |
Expected behavior |
SUPPORT.md |
Where to ask questions and get content errors fixed |
SECURITY.md |
Reporting an insecure code pattern or a tooling concern |
Questions and content errors go to GitHub Issues; include the file path.
