Cloud provider SIG and deprecation of existing cloud-specific SIGs

[kubernetes]

Cloud provider SIG and deprecation of existing cloud-specific SIGs

[michelleN]

buy-in achieved. executing now. let's check back in July

[justaugustus]

@dankohn --

• AWS (@justinsb @d-nishi @kris-nova)
• Azure (@justaugustus @craiglpeters)
• GCP (@abgworrall)
• IBMCloud (Khalid Ahmed, Richard Theis, @spzala)
• VMware (@frapposelli @cantbewong)
• Openstack (@hogepodge)

[justaugustus]

Yes, my apologies! I pulled that list from the set of cloud providers involved in the consolidation proposal.
Alibaba should definitely be on the list.

[justaugustus]

Cross-posting my $0.02:

Aaron --

I think this was a side-effect of having existing CP SIGs prior to the ratification of SIG Cloud Provider.
There is an intent / long-term goal to have existing CP SIGs "bend the knee" i.e., converting a CP SIG to a subproject under SIG Cloud Provider:
- https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-cloud-provider/CHARTER.md#subproject-creation
- https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-cloud-provider/CHARTER.md#consolidating-existing-cloud-sigs

From a SIG Azure perspective, we're willing to convert and happy to be [a|the] guinea pig for helping to define the conversion process.

Additionally, I think if SIG CP is going to be the ingress point, their README should include the GitHub teams to contact a specific cloud provider e.g., @kubernetes/sig-azure, @kubernetes/cp-azure (or some such).

Best,
Stephen

[frapposelli]

Crossposting from kubernetes/community#2516

My 2 cents, from SIG-VMware perspective.

The scope for SIG-VMware has always been broader than just owning the cloud provider, we created > the cloud-provider-vsphere subproject initially under SIG-VMware only because SIG Cloud Provider > was not there at the time.

I personally participated in the definition of SIG Cloud Provider, and SIG-VMware agreed to transfer ownership of the subproject once SIG CP was approved (this was discussed during several meetings of SIG VMware).

With kubernetes/community#2478 we removed the cloud-provider-vsphere subproject from SIG-VMware and added a note regarding the transfer of ownership. We still maintain a bi-weekly syncup on cloud-provider-vsphere under SIG-VMware as we didn't feel the need to transfer ownership of the meeting, but happy to comply if deemed necessary.

I'm cc:ing @andrewsykim as co-chair of SIG Cloud Provider to chime in on this, I believe what SIG-VMware has done (w.r.t. transfer of subproject ownership) was what we collectively agreed to do when the interested parties gave their thumbs up to SIG-CP.

[timothysc]

There is a proposal in-flight and I already reviewed and would be happy to help shepherd it through.

[dankohn]

CNCF hasn't sent out email yet asking for maintainer track sessions for San Diego. For that event and going forward, we're OK offering a session to each cloud provider subproject of SIG Cloud Provider. We want to have a canonical list who to invite. Could you please confirm that the current list will be https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-cloud-provider/README.md#subprojects but not cloud-provider-extraction-migration or kubernetes-cloud-provider. Will Google, OpenStack, VMware, etc. be removed soon from https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-list.md? If not, could SIG Cloud Provider please create a canonical list of cloud providers who should get a slot. -- Dan Kohn <[email protected]> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io [phone] https://www.dankohn.com

…

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 1:20 PM Andrew Sy Kim ***@***.***> wrote: We should start coordinating with CNCF on sessions for cloud providers (as subprojects or user groups). More details in the proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/16IAOspFVbGWd3RZg6h7uE3WXlRuvWDNnjBPxwITAda4/edit#. @idvoretskyi <https://github.com/idvoretskyi> is this something you can help with? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#65?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAXQYBVIO6C3JUAH743VHTTP3EKPXA5CNFSM4FLVBNGKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODX7LBZQ#issuecomment-503230694>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXQYBS5UMCZVSDT7KOITEDP3EKPXANCNFSM4FLVBNGA> .

[dankohn]

Thanks. Would you mind adding to https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-cloud-provider/README.md <https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-cloud-provider/README.md#subprojects> or similar? Also, what about Alibaba? -- Dan Kohn <[email protected]> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io [phone] https://www.dankohn.com

…

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 2:07 PM Stephen Augustus ***@***.***> wrote: @dankohn <https://github.com/dankohn> -- - AWS ***@***.*** <https://github.com/justinsb> @d-nishi <https://github.com/d-nishi> @kris-nova <https://github.com/kris-nova>) - Azure ***@***.*** <https://github.com/justaugustus> @craiglpeters <https://github.com/craiglpeters>) - GCP ***@***.*** <https://github.com/abgworrall>) - IBMCloud (Khalid Ahmed, Richard Theis, @spzala <https://github.com/spzala>) - VMware ***@***.*** <https://github.com/frapposelli> @cantbewong <https://github.com/cantbewong>) - Openstack ***@***.*** <https://github.com/hogepodge>) — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#65?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAXQYBQ6L4YPTZBFIWRY2YLP3EP6BA5CNFSM4FLVBNGKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODX7PMIA#issuecomment-503248416>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXQYBWJD6RQ3YS23X2W2V3P3EP6BANCNFSM4FLVBNGA> .

[spiffxp]

Moving to our July milestone as we're still keeping tabs on this

[dankohn]

@justaugustus @andrewsykim CNCF is ready to send out invitations for maintainer track sessions at KubeCon San Diego.

Could we please get the canonical list of the Cloud Provider subprojects that should get slots? Going forward, we'd like it as a table on https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-cloud-provider/README.md. But for now, is it:

AWS (@justinsb @d-nishi @kris-nova)
Azure (@justaugustus @craiglpeters)
GCP (@abgworrall)
IBMCloud (Khalid Ahmed, Richard Theis, @spzala)
VMware (@frapposelli @cantbewong)
Openstack (@hogepodge) was

plus:

AlibabaCloud (@aoxn @cheyang @xlgao-zju)

[andrewsykim]

@dankohn that looks great! The official list under sig-cloud-provider should be updated as soon as kubernetes/community#3895 merges. Thanks!

[timothysc]

As we start to evaluate charters I think there will need to be rationalization where several of the providers would move to sub-projects within the overall SIG. This is what happened within sig-cluster-lifecycle naturally, but imo we should leverage the chartering process as a forcing function to help expedite this rationalization.

…

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:42 PM Jaice Singer DuMars < ***@***.***> wrote: Context: 20180718 https://youtu.be/I6BwkOA9dn4?t=23m51s As SIG Cloud Provider takes shape, it has the potential to obviate existing cloud SIGs. Should that be mandated at some point, especially in light of cloud provider code being moved out of core? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#65>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAKWUbt9mmqWBA1MdyHEApShD4FE9iYrks5uJ2qtgaJpZM4VdQtM> .

-- Cheers, Timothy St. Clair “Do all the good you can. By all the means you can. In all the ways you can. In all the places you can. At all the times you can. To all the people you can. As long as ever you can.”

[timothysc]

/cc @spiffxp @jbeda

[spiffxp]

does this mean approve charter -> then move, or move as part of charter review?

[jdumars]

kubernetes/community#2516

This was raised in the mailing list here

[andrewsykim]

I think Stephen & Fabio summarized it pretty well :).

As mentioned in our charter, we have a tentative goal to consolidate all the cloud provider SIGs in the next 3 releases (quarters). We understand that a lot of important discussions/development happens within the current SIG structure so we're trying our best to do this in a way that is as least disruptive as possible.

To be honest & transparent with the steering committee though; we have not yet had a discussion around this in any of our meetings since we've been focusing our efforts on documentation + conformance testing from cloud providers. I think we'll make more progress on this front in the next 3 - 6months and I'm happy to give the steering committee more frequent updates on this effort if there is interest!

[fejta-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/lifecycle stale

[andrewsykim]

/remove-lifecycle stale

We had a chance to talk about this in more details at KubeCON. We have an action item for 2019 to write a proposal to the steering committee on how we think this should be done. Will follow up with @spiffxp @calebamiles when we have something more concrete.

[andrewsykim]

Discussions around this during our deep dive: https://youtu.be/iRj5Dtxzw78?t=1469

[andrewsykim]

Thanks @timothysc! Here's the rough timeline we set out for the proposal so far:

Final Walkthrough of the Proposal: 20/03/19 during SIG Cloud Provider biweekly
Send Proposal to Steering Committee: 03/04/19 (possibly sooner if we have full consensus)

This should set us up in time for KubeCON NA 2019. Big shoutout to @d-nishi for driving this forward!

[timothysc]

Chatted with Andrew, and they would like to present and update on April 10th.

[timothysc]

Proposal - https://docs.google.com/document/d/16IAOspFVbGWd3RZg6h7uE3WXlRuvWDNnjBPxwITAda4/edit#

[andrewsykim]

Following up from the steering committee meeting, I think a reasonable deadline for providers to opt into this would be mid July which is inline with when CFP closes for KubeCON NA. That would give us time to figure out if there are any changes required for sessions at KubeCON. Thoughts? cc @dims @spiffxp

[dims]

sounds good @andrewsykim

[timothysc]

Relating to a conversation about subproject ownership from this discussion - https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/1673#issuecomment-484746226

[andrewsykim]

We should start coordinating with CNCF on sessions for cloud providers (as subprojects or user groups). More details in the proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/16IAOspFVbGWd3RZg6h7uE3WXlRuvWDNnjBPxwITAda4/edit#. @idvoretskyi is this something you can help with?

[andrewsykim]

Alibaba should be on the list as well if they are attending. cc @aoxn

[andrewsykim]

@dankohn we set a deadline for July 12th to update all the existing SIGs to fold as subprojects (see #65 (comment)). Would it be too late to have the subproject list updated by July 12th or would you need it sooner? Otherwise the list of contacts Stephen listed should be accurate for now until then.

[dankohn]

That sounds fine. Thank you. -- Dan Kohn <[email protected]> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io [phone] https://www.dankohn.com

…

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:04 PM Andrew Sy Kim ***@***.***> wrote: @dankohn <https://github.com/dankohn> we set a deadline for July 12th to update all the existing SIGs to fold as subprojects (see #65 (comment) <#65 (comment)>). Would it be too late to have the subproject list updated by July 12th or would you need it sooner? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#65?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAXQYBSTZ5QWJOMBM62NQPTP3FSYPA5CNFSM4FLVBNGKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODYAGU6A#issuecomment-503343736>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXQYBWE6HWGXWLLJLDU6ODP3FSYPANCNFSM4FLVBNGA> .

[dims]

kubernetes/community#3895 has merged. We can close this out now

/close

[k8s-ci-robot]

@dims: Closing this issue.

In response to this:

kubernetes/community#3895 has merged. We can close this out now

/close

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.