SIG Multicluster charter

[pmorie]

Replaces #1989 as a WIP for SIG multicluster charter.

[csbell]

/approve

[marun]

lgtm

[timothysc]

@pmorie - Thanks for updating!

Would it be possible to try and add more specifics? We're trying hard to make certain we're explicit and well scoped in the charters, because otherwise responsibilities get all muddled.

/assign @quinton-hoole

[timothysc]

This is really broad, could you scope it down?

e.g. - what aspects?

• Networking, application mgmt, disaster recovery, etc.

[pmorie]

I think the most sensible thing to say here is probably to be really specific about the scopes of the existing projects, which are:

• cluster-registry
• federation-v2
• kubemci

I don't think it's especially useful to have a vague prose description of the scope - since this SIG is essentially focused entirely around these projects at this point.

[timothysc]

I think the most sensible thing to say here is probably to be really specific about the scopes of the existing projects

Agreed, we want to make certain the areas of responsibility translate to specific areas of ownership so we can start to rationalize the SIGs across the project.

[philips]

/cc @spiffxp

[spiffxp]

/unassign @quinton-hoole
/assign

[spiffxp]

/committee steering

[spiffxp]

/assign @timothysc

[spiffxp]

Looking forward to more specifics

[spiffxp]

Needs to be less vague. spartakus tracks information about multiple clusters, in the sense that they all ping it... but I doubt that's under your purview

[spiffxp]

Which SIG (if any) would own reconciliation between cluster-api and cluster-registry?

[pmorie]

I had hoped to address that by narrowly defining the scope of the SIG. I will add a note that specifically addresses the situation where another part of the community plans an integration between another piece of software and one that is in scope for the SIG.

[spiffxp]

Ping, any updates on this?

[pmorie]

@spiffxp @timothysc changes pushed, tried to be very specific.

[timothysc]

@pmorie am I missing something, I don't see an updated PR?

[pmorie]

@timothysc it sure helps if you push to the right branch; apologies!

[timothysc]

/hold

Pending @spiffxp feedback.

I don't really have issues with the current form, but it may be a bit limiting. I'd leave that to the chairs to decide.

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: csbell, timothysc

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:

• OWNERS [timothysc]

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

[spiffxp]

This looks like over-specification to me, especially compared to the description in sigs.yaml. Things mentioned there I don't see here:

• tools related to multi-cluster administration and application management
• batch-workflow continuous deployment systems like Spinnaker and others
• changes to kubernetes core where appropriate
• anything around common practices or approaches to the use of multiple clusters

/lgtm
I'll LGTM this as is, but I would anticipate some iteration will need to happen here

[spiffxp]

Please /hold cancel if you're happy with this in its current form @pmorie

[pmorie]

@spiffxp @timothysc I agree that it is very specific at this point, I found it hard to determine exactly what the right level of detail was and decided to err on being overly specific rather than overly broad.

I'm fine iterating on this in follow-ups, canceling hold.

Thanks for the reviews!

/hold cancel

[spiffxp]

The /hold command wasn't picked up due to an ongoing github incident. Linking to see if this gets picked back up when github recovers

kubernetes/test-infra#9881