New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
renaming k8s-infra-team to wg-k8s-infra #166
Comments
I'd like to consider if we're moving anyways, to use our gsuite instead of public google groups. The auditing of permissions, the administrator recovery, etc are way stronger there as opposed to the public groups (especially with these really high level trusted permissions). |
It's my understanding that groups don't cost anything, so we'd just need to request of one of the steering committee admin account holders to set up the groups themselves for us. |
I'm fine with the idea of holding on our groups for ACLs etc, to see if gsuite makes more sense But I would still like to rename our public discussion group / mailing list |
In general, the feeling was NOT to use the gsuite account very much. Because this will be potentially a lot of small groups, in particular. But I don't hold those keys any more. If steering wants to use gsuite ggroups for this, I am fine. If we stay with public ggroups, I think we should leave the admin groups (which means the GCP project needs no changes). If we move to gsuite, I will need new admin groups created and give me owner on them. Then I can set it up in GCP |
The problem is I don't want to lose access or control over any of the google groups that give infrastructure control. I would like to see those extremely tightly held. |
Christoph, are you arguing FOR or AGAINST gsuite? :)
…On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 11:38 AM Christoph Blecker ***@***.***> wrote:
The problem is I don't want to lose access or control over any of the
google groups that give infrastructure control. I would like to see those
extremely tightly held.
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#166 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFVgVPe1JMRWSk39kUzkDf5WP9xji4Wrks5vF2iigaJpZM4aCFy4>
.
|
FOR :) Sure, we'd need to bug one of the admins for new groups being created, but we have way better control/visibility/auditing too. |
Hi guys. I've found one more place where where was an old url to the wg google group, and created a PR: kubernetes/community#3334 I'm in the process of adding my email to the list of CNCF's approved CLA, but after that is there anything else I can help here with? :-) |
that should be it. /close |
@dims: Closing this issue. In response to this:
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. |
Now that our charter has landed (ref: kubernetes/community#2830), and we're still in early days, let's rename assets from k8s-infra-team to wg-k8s-infra:
slack channel
This is a transparent rename, need to ask #slack-admins
public google group
This is a hard break, suggest e-mailing list to let them know of the move, and then doing the move.
k/community docs
update references in here once the slack channel and public google group is renamed
admin groups
Honestly I'm torn on this, part of me says do it so everything is the same. Part of me says k8s-infra is good enough since there are questions of whether this stays as a wg or may one day become a sig (or a committee, or who knows)
/assign @spiffxp
I'm willing to take on all but admin groups
/assign @dims @thockin
WDYT about the admin groups?
/wg k8s-infra
/kind cleanup
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: