Skip to content
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

[RFC] SIG-Node initial charter #2065

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 24, 2018

Conversation

derekwaynecarr
Copy link
Member

Co-authored by: @derekwaynecarr @dchen1107

/sig node

Topics for discussion with @kubernetes/steering-committee review:

  1. working group lifecycle - this proposal empowers a technical lead of a sig to sponsor a working group. if working groups span sigs, this would mean agreement from a technical lead from each sponsoring sig may be required, and therefore should be common across the project.
  2. process to decommission a sub-project - could be a variety of reasons (not healthy, not maintained, no longer endorsed or accepted by the sig). this proposal makes no statement on the mechanism other than stating technical leads should have the power.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. labels Apr 23, 2018
- Number: 1-3
- Defined in [sigs.yaml]

- **Technical Leads**
Copy link
Contributor

@resouer resouer Apr 24, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

TL have overlap with Chairs, is it expected?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, it is expected. the traditional sig lead role has been split into chair and technical lead roles. for sig-node, i anticipate there will be overlap where chairs will also serve as technical leads, but we may want to expand the list of tech leads to at least have an odd number.

@derekwaynecarr
Copy link
Member Author

Added section for scope per guidelines enumerated in #2078

/cc @dchen1107 PTAL

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@derekwaynecarr: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: PTAL.

Note that only kubernetes members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

Added section for scope per guidelines enumerated in #2078

/cc @dchen1107 PTAL

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.

@pwittrock pwittrock added the committee/steering Denotes an issue or PR intended to be handled by the steering committee. label Jun 21, 2018

* Kubelet related features (e.g. Pod lifecycle)
* Node level performance and scalability (with [sig-scalability](../sig-scalability))
* Node reliability
* Node reliability (prooblem detection and remediation)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

prooblem?


#### Subproject creation

- Subprojects *MAY* be created by [KEP] proposal and *MUST* be approved by at
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems like it should be generalized policy. I don't know if it belongs here.

* Node lifecycle management (with [sig-cluster-lifecycle](../sig-cluster-lifecycle))
* Container runtimes
* Device management
* Images, package management
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think I know what you mean by package management but it might be confused with SIG release


The following topics are out of the scope of this SIG

* network management
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can you expand on this? Or perhaps link to sig-network?

The following topics are out of the scope of this SIG

* network management
* persistent storage management
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

link to sig storage?

@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Jul 20, 2018

Thank you for your patience as we work to your SIG charter merged.

Through the process of reviewing the first 11 charters the Steering Committee (SC) found a lot of copy/paste language caused by our poorly designed initial charter template. To fix this there is a new SIG charter template which focuses on the main things we want to see in charters: scope and responsibilities.

Please consider updating to this charter template and putting focus into the scope and responsibilities. SC members will focus more on a deep review of scope more than anything else and using this template will help with that focus.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 1, 2018
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 1, 2018
@derekwaynecarr
Copy link
Member Author

@dchen1107 updated to opt-in to default sig-governance which did not differ significantly.

@philips this should be ready for final review.

- Container runtimes
- Device management
- Image management
- Host resource management (with [sig-scheduling](../sig-scheduling))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I suggest calling this "node-level", for consistency with the other bullets


#### Code, Binaries and Services

- Kubelet related features (e.g. Pod lifecycle)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The template says: list of what qualifies a piece of code, binary or service as falling into the scope of this SIG

So how about: Kubelet and its features

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What about:

  • The Pod API and Pod behaviors (some fields are owned by other SIGs, but...)
  • The Node API
  • Node controller
    ?

Pick one:

1. SIG Technical Leads (x)
2. Federation of Subprojects
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please remove the second bullet if you're opting for the first

SIG Node is responsible for the components that support the controlled
interactions between pods and host resources. We manage the lifecycle of pods
that are scheduled to a node. We focus on enabling a broad set of workload
types, including hardware and performance sensitive workloads. We maintain
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have trouble parsing "including hardware and performance sensitive workloads".


### In scope

Link to SIG section in [sigs.yaml]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you're supposed to insert a link, though linking to the generated README seems easier.

@bgrant0607
Copy link
Member

Thank you for the updates.

/lgtm
/approve

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 24, 2018
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: bgrant0607

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:

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 24, 2018
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit e340fb5 into kubernetes:master Aug 24, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. committee/steering Denotes an issue or PR intended to be handled by the steering committee. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. sig/node Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG Node. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants