add blog post for in-tree cloud provider removal going beta

[elmiko]

This PR is a placeholder for adds a blog article on the recent status change for KEP-2395 from alpha to beta.

[elmiko]

cc @krol3 @Priyankasaggu11929 @sftim

[netlify]

✅ Pull request preview available for checking

Built without sensitive environment variables

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	eeba8cc
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-io-main-staging/deploys/6574c8b66eb95f000807aa0a
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-44010--kubernetes-io-main-staging.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[sftim]

This blog article is late (deadline for a placeholder was in October; deadline a reviewable PR was Friday).

Please act to have it ready for review as soon as possible @elmiko.

[krol3]

Hi @elmiko , here Communication Team 1.29, the deadline to the feature blog be ready to review was this Friday, Nov 17th, the proposal publish date will be Dec 20th. cc: @a-mccarthy @kcmartin @James-Quigley

[elmiko]

i left a comment in slack, but will post here as well.

we discussed the blog post in our sig meeting today, and while we know we are late and will push to get this created as soon as possible, there was concern raised that this blog will describe a breaking change in kubernetes and if we could get it done sooner would it be possible to have it published sooner?

cc @andrewsykim

[sftim]

This is a post release article. There is a different article ahead of release that we use to announce upcoming breaking changes - see https://kubernetes.io/blog/2023/11/16/kubernetes-1-29-upcoming-changes/#removal-of-in-tree-integrations-with-cloud-providers-kep-2395-https-kep-k8s-io-2395 as we have already published that one.

You might want to ask that this removal be highlighted in the release announcement? If that's what you want, you don't need a separate article and this PR could close. Instead, visit #43939 and provide feedback there to request making the cloud provider changes really prominent.

[andrewsykim]

There is a different article ahead of release that we use to announce upcoming breaking changes - see https://kubernetes.io/blog/2023/11/16/kubernetes-1-29-upcoming-changes/#removal-of-in-tree-integrations-with-cloud-providers-kep-2395-https-kep-k8s-io-2395 as we have already published that one.

I wasn't aware of this section of the release blog. Given it's first on the list of deprecations/removals section I think it's fine?

[sftim]

I wasn't aware of this section of the release blog. Given it's first on the list of deprecations/removals section I think it's fine?

Hi, you might mean:

• it's fine to have a blog article that repeats what the release blog already explains
• given that the release blog is putting the removal as a highlighted item, it's fine to not have a blog article to make the same point a day or so later

Could you clarify which point you wanted to make @andrewsykim?

---

If you do want the repetition, release comms own the decision about whether that makes sense. As I explained, my personal view is that it doesn't: making the same point twice burns a small amount of goodwill across a large number of blog subscribers.

[elmiko]

blog post updated and ready for review

[sftim]

This announcement is late @elmiko, so please prioritize work on addressing feedback.

Here's a rushed, partial review. For myself, I may or may not have time to help get this to the quality level we like to achieve. The more help you can provide, the better for the project.

It will be a shame to make this big change without communicating it effectively.

[sftim]

Suggested change

	title: "Removing In-Tree Cloud Providers Graduates to Beta Status"
	title: "Kubernetes 1.29: Cloud Provider Integrations Are Now Separate Components"

[elmiko]

update incoming

[sftim]

IMO: this should appear before any mention of the term “SIG”.

[elmiko]

are you saying this paragraph should be moved to the intro section at the top?

[sftim]

Although this might feel like a feature, readers will experience this more as a loss: they didn't have to do a thing, and now they do. I would omit these details given we're basically imposing work on end users.

[elmiko]

just to be clear, remove the SIG details or the entire section on "Want to learn more" ?

[sftim]

The key feedback item: #44010 (comment)

(but please then read all the other feedback)

[sftim]

Hi @elmiko . I've unresolved https://github.com/kubernetes/website/pull/44010/files#r1408096483

I'll go through the other feedback in a bit to check if anything else needs unresolving, but for now: if dismissing feedback without addressing it, please provide a comment about why you've done that. I believe that commenting before dismissing will cut down the overall effort on both sides.

[sftim]

/lgtm
/approve

Optional further tweaks

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 5525305d1ce9d73ba367a088a49c9170bda466fd

[elmiko]

i took the option! 😂

[sftim]

/lgtm
/approve

🛑 Do not merge until Kubernetes v1.29 is released 🛑

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: e01ee0512cf8f3f5a62f67c811afc834b1972c02

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: sftim

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• content/en/blog/OWNERS [sftim]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[elmiko]

updated with Andrew's suggestion

[sftim]

I'm going to commit the suggestion from #44010 (comment) @elmiko - hope that's OK by you.

[sftim]

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: a407efb24b5f1220f2b9539bbdccb8bba953cc55

[reylejano]

/unhold