added SIG Arch charter #2804

jdumars · 2018-10-15T20:36:57Z

Charter drafted. See https://groups.google.com/d/msg/kubernetes-sig-architecture/FpcrJQW1R1A/Oh7dN_JEAwAJ for some reference.

Once this gets hashed out, I'll add changes to sigs.yaml so I don't have to keep rebasing.

jdumars · 2018-10-15T20:37:14Z

/hold

quinton-hoole

This seems to be lacking any real substance at the moment. Is it ready for review?

quinton-hoole · 2018-10-15T20:48:31Z

sig-architecture/charter.md

+Federation of Subprojects as defined in [sig-governance]
+
+[sig-governance]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/committee-steering/governance/sig-governance.md
+[sig-subprojects]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-YOURSIG/README.md#subprojects


yes, for now, but I'll update the template link

quinton-hoole · 2018-10-15T20:49:20Z

sig-architecture/charter.md

+
+### Deviations from [sig-governance]
+
+- Generic technical leads are not appropriate for this SIG because sub-projects maintain their own documented, accountable processes


I don't think they do at the moment? Until they do, I think we should cover that here.

Do we need a process for official formation/merging/splitting/decommissioning of subprojects?

@quinton-hoole may be.we require our sub-projects to develop and maintain their own documented, accountable processes? and punt it to our sub projects?

@lavalamp are we going to do something special other than in committee-steering/governance/sig-governance.md?

I think sub-projects have processes but they may not be documented. Is that the real gotcha here?

Yes, I think so.

lavalamp · 2018-10-15T21:08:52Z

sig-architecture/charter.md

+#### Code, Binaries and Services
+
+- *Conformance test definitions*
+- *API changes*


Defining what is "in core" vs what is "an optional extension"?

(implied by the above but might be good to state it explicitly)

Could you suggest the specific language you'd like to see there?

Sorry, I think the heading means something more concrete than I thought at first.

I do suggest s/API changes/API definitions/

Great, thank you. Added.

jdumars · 2018-10-15T22:34:00Z

For reference, a completed and approved charter:
https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-node/charter.md

dims · 2018-10-18T11:04:53Z

sig-architecture/charter.md

+### Out of scope
+
+- KEPs that do not have architectural implications
+- The release features process


didn't they change this to enhancements?

Yes, I will fix this.

sig-architecture/charter.md

dims · 2018-10-18T11:22:44Z

@jdumars what's missing here is the identification of the crew the pool of folks from which we draw upon for getting work done and who form the backbone of the sub projects that get things done. Can we please have a way to identify and maintain a group of people as those who participate in this SIG? I'd also want us to add something about actively mentoring new folks into joining this crew (to share history behind decisions etc) both as a defense against attrition but also as a progression for someone who is active in the community and want to learn about the architecture designs/challenges and participate effectively.

This could be as simple as just using one of the github teams https://github.com/orgs/kubernetes/teams?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=arch with the list of folks who are participating in one of the subprojects and maintaining list over time

Thanks,
Dims

jdumars · 2018-10-22T17:10:50Z

@dims I do like the idea of the crew, but struggle with it being a complete outlier in terms of SIG structure. No other sig or subproject has the notion of membership, except the release team, which is only codified in a markdown file, and personal commitment to contribute for the duration of the release. In my opinion, the crew should be self-evident by the people who are already doing things. They should be codified in OWNERS files, leading sub-projects, curating our boards, managing the conformance test coverage, etc. Another layer of affiliation is meaningless without corresponding contributions. I am also concerned that the group could be misused as a technical arbiter, which is a proven anti-pattern in technical decision making. Decisions should be made as close to the subject as possible, by the people who have the most direct knowledge.

All that said, we need a mentoring program, much like @parispittman does in Contributor Experience. Right now, I don't think there is a queue of people clambering to become reviewers of approvers.

Over time, I think we should investigate what the crew could look like. And, if the Steering Committee thinks all SIGs need this, then of course we'll figure it out. Architecture is a place where methodical decisions are critical. I do not believe we should be inventing our own governance instead of aligning with the rest of the project. If we want to drive those changes, then we should put a well-reasoned argument before the steering committee.

justaugustus · 2018-10-24T09:25:21Z

@dims @jdumars -- For reference, SIG Release has submitted a charter that makes reference to the idea of a SIG Member. It's not an exhaustive or long-winded definition, but perhaps it's helpful in this case as well: kubernetes/sig-release#348

quinton-hoole · 2018-11-01T19:17:09Z

@jdumars @bgrant0607 I would prefer not to merge just yet. Can we leave it open for one more week for feedback please.

sig-architecture/charter.md

quinton-hoole · 2018-11-08T17:49:09Z

sig-architecture/charter.md

+### Out of scope
+
+- KEPs that do not have architectural implications
+- The release enhancement delivery process


What does "release enhancement delivery process" mean?

https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/README.md
It's what the "release features delivery process" used to be

OK, thanks. It would be useful to link to that, and mention who's scope it does fall within, if not this sig.

Same perhaps goes for KEP's that do not have architectural implications. Presumably these are the responsibility of the relevant specific sponsoring SIG's.

@jdumars Not addressed yet?

It seems this was overlooked -- ping

Fixed. Sorry I missed this comment.

sig-architecture/charter.md

dims · 2018-11-13T21:44:24Z

LGTM 👍

jdumars · 2018-11-14T07:06:01Z

/lgtm

k8s-ci-robot · 2018-11-14T07:06:01Z

@jdumars: you cannot LGTM your own PR.

In response to this:

/lgtm

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

cblecker

LGTM 🚀

cblecker · 2018-11-14T18:40:18Z

@jdumars the subject of the PR can probably get changed as I don't believe this is a draft any longer :D

jbeda

Looks like a great start. Ship it!

/lgtm

jbeda · 2018-11-14T18:56:06Z

sig-architecture/charter.md

-* Document who owns client library, build, and release artifacts
-* Document who owns conformance definition, profiles, etc.
+This charter adheres to the conventions described in the [Kubernetes Charter README] and uses
+the Roles and Organization Management outlined in [sig-governance].


Nit: some of this is a repeat of line 37 below.

That's a template issue:
https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/committee-steering/governance/sig-charter-template.md

jdumars · 2018-11-14T21:34:02Z

We'll have a ceremonial "hold lifting party" at SIG Architecture tomorrow. Thanks everyone for coming together on this.

cblecker · 2018-11-15T18:43:23Z

/lgtm

jdumars · 2018-11-15T19:05:15Z

/hold cancel

added draft SIG Arch charter

b62c722

jdumars added sig/architecture Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Architecture. committee/steering Denotes an issue or PR intended to be handled by the steering committee. labels Oct 15, 2018

jdumars requested review from dims, jbeda, mattfarina, lavalamp, cblecker, thockin, bgrant0607, eparis, davidopp and quinton-hoole October 15, 2018 20:36

k8s-ci-robot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Oct 15, 2018

k8s-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Oct 15, 2018

k8s-ci-robot requested a review from grodrigues3 October 15, 2018 20:37

quinton-hoole reviewed Oct 15, 2018

View reviewed changes

lavalamp reviewed Oct 15, 2018

View reviewed changes

jdumars added 2 commits October 15, 2018 15:34

update link to subprojects

b1fda49

changed to API definitions per lavalamp

a9294b3

dims reviewed Oct 18, 2018

View reviewed changes

sig-architecture/charter.md Show resolved Hide resolved

jdumars mentioned this pull request Oct 18, 2018

Charters Meta-issue kubernetes/steering#31

Closed

updated with Dims wording fix

72833c9

k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Nov 1, 2018

dims reviewed Nov 2, 2018

View reviewed changes

sig-architecture/charter.md Show resolved Hide resolved

quinton-hoole reviewed Nov 8, 2018

View reviewed changes

sig-architecture/charter.md Show resolved Hide resolved

Added to-do per quinton-hoole-2

ef52a10

k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Nov 13, 2018

cblecker added the tide/merge-method-squash Denotes a PR that should be squashed by tide when it merges. label Nov 14, 2018

cblecker approved these changes Nov 14, 2018

View reviewed changes

jbeda approved these changes Nov 14, 2018

View reviewed changes

k8s-ci-robot assigned jbeda Nov 14, 2018

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 14, 2018

bgrant0607 changed the title ~~added draft SIG Arch charter~~ added SIG Arch charter Nov 14, 2018

addressed final comments on out-of-scope items

f8e34f7

k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 15, 2018

k8s-ci-robot assigned cblecker Nov 15, 2018

k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Nov 15, 2018

mattfarina approved these changes Nov 15, 2018

View reviewed changes

jdumars removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Nov 15, 2018

k8s-ci-robot merged commit f28661f into kubernetes:master Nov 15, 2018

jdumars deleted the archcharter branch November 15, 2018 19:09


		### Deviations from [sig-governance]

		- Generic technical leads are not appropriate for this SIG because sub-projects maintain their own documented, accountable processes

added SIG Arch charter #2804

added SIG Arch charter #2804

Conversation

jdumars commented Oct 15, 2018

jdumars commented Oct 15, 2018

quinton-hoole left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dims Oct 18, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jdumars commented Oct 15, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dims commented Oct 18, 2018 • edited Loading

jdumars commented Oct 22, 2018

justaugustus commented Oct 24, 2018

quinton-hoole commented Nov 1, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

quinton-hoole Nov 8, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dims commented Nov 13, 2018

jdumars commented Nov 14, 2018

k8s-ci-robot commented Nov 14, 2018

cblecker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cblecker commented Nov 14, 2018

jbeda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jdumars commented Nov 14, 2018

cblecker commented Nov 15, 2018

jdumars commented Nov 15, 2018 • edited Loading

dims Oct 18, 2018 •

edited

Loading

dims commented Oct 18, 2018 •

edited

Loading

quinton-hoole Nov 8, 2018 •

edited

Loading

jdumars commented Nov 15, 2018 •

edited

Loading