Where does the effort to move k8s infra to CNCF fall?

[spiffxp]

/committee steering

We have #k8s-infra-team on slack

There is a recurring meeting with a running agenda doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r0nydnBoU7o_L7Hnjdc9SZrWe9zosbz64ZUUPn0XwXk/edit

Discussion during the team's first meeting (I wasn't around for the second) was a recognition that this effort needs to be formalized, but we didn't want to impede its initial progress around such formalization

Ideas to consider:

• a "subproject" under a single SIG, ie: the "release team" is a subproject of SIG Release that involves effort from areas across the project
• a "working group", this spans the work of multiple sigs (contribex, testing, release)
• a "team " akin to the "product security team", which has more stringent requirements for membership and responsibilities
• a "sig" because this group could potentially own code/assets
• something that falls under CNCF's purview rather than Kubernetes (to my knowledge CNCF only has working groups)
• we would want to ensure rules are in place to ensure no single entity dominates leadership/ownership of this effort

FYI @dims @thockin @idvoretskyi @brendandburns @cblecker @BenTheElder

[spiffxp]

/sig contributor-experience
/sig release
/sig testing

[spiffxp]

If we go the working group route, we need to resolve kubernetes/steering#27

[BenTheElder]

+cc @amwat (I'm sure others as well...)

[cblecker]

cc: @kubernetes/k8s-infra-team

[spiffxp]

Discussed during today's steering committee meeting

We are going to act as a working group, and delegate code ownership to the SIGS that make the most sense. I will try to add extra verbiage if need be to ensure our "no single entity dominates" concern is addressed.

This may ultimately follow the model blazed by sig-cloud-provider, which started as a WG but turned into a SIG when it was clear it wasn't temporary and a useful home for code ownership. I will work with @pwittrock to ensure this meets other concerns around WGs that were discussed today.

[thockin]

Great! Did we decide whether we want to be a subdir of an existing repo or a new repo? I could put it in the k8s.io/ repo and be happy

…

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:00 PM Aaron Crickenberger < ***@***.***> wrote: Discussed during today's steering committee meeting We are going to act as a working group, and delegate code ownership to the SIGS that make the most sense. I will try to add extra verbiage if need be to ensure our "no single entity dominates" concern is addressed. This may ultimately follow the model blazed by sig-cloud-provider, which started as a WG but turned into a SIG when it was clear it wasn't temporary and a useful home for code ownership. I will work with @pwittrock <https://github.com/pwittrock> to ensure this meets other concerns around WGs that were discussed today. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2715 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFVgVPOd4-xeKPdTc-aQB10XLLyTHXTAks5ue-sBgaJpZM4W7KsK> .

[spiffxp]

subdir of k8s.io is fine

[spiffxp]

/assign @spiffxp @dims

[spiffxp]

We discussed during today's meeting and @dims and I will act as chairs for the WG. We discussed whether we want a charter given that no other WG has one, but we feel it's important to be explicit about in-scope/out-of-scope here, so will do a charter. I will consider this issue closed once we have merged a PR with said charter.

[idvoretskyi]

/cc

[spiffxp]

Draft charter is out #2830

[dims]

dashboard is here https://github.com/orgs/kubernetes/projects/6

[spiffxp]

/wg k8s-infra