Provide a charter for SIG Big Data

[erikerlandson]

Adds a charter.md for the sig-big-data directory, and makes corresponding adjustments to sigs.yaml and the SIG readme.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @erikerlandson. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
To fully approve this pull request, please assign additional approvers.
We suggest the following additional approver: spiffxp

If they are not already assigned, you can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @spiffxp in a comment when ready.

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

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

[liyinan926]

/lgtm

[liyinan926]

/ok-to-test

[liyinan926]

/lgtm

[timothysc]

@kubernetes/steering-committee
/hold
/lgtm cancel

[timothysc]

This is isn't really a definition of a SIG, b/c there isn't code ownership in k/k. Instead, it's more of a working group.

[erikerlandson]

It's obviously not my prerogative to define them, but FWIW that seems inverted to me. A working group is what I'd convene to own some code-related projects, and an Interest Group is a community forum for people with Interest in some topic, such as big data integrations for k8s, to participate in.

[spiffxp]

Agree with @timothysc this doesn't sound much like a SIG, at least as far as we define them within this project: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/governance.md#sigs

This sounds more like a user community than it does a group that is advancing the project

[timothysc]

Are there OWNERS files maintained by the SIG in the Kubernetes org?

[erikerlandson]

currently, no

[timothysc]

/assign @bgrant0607

I know you have thoughts because you've mentioned them before.

[spiffxp]

/committee steering

[philips]

I want to echo concerns by the other steering committee members @spiffxp and @timothysc that this doesn't seem to meet the code ownership requirements of a SIG.

[timothysc]

Per conversations, we are planning to hold on rationalizing this until post-KubeCon.

[timothysc]

It's the new year.

@mattfarina I'm kind of in the boat that this should be a sig-apps sponsored working group. Thoughts?

[erikerlandson]

The thing that still puzzles me about the WG designation is that it implies some task (research a problem, draft a design, report back, etc), with a finite lifetime. However we might categorize our group's activities, I view them as on-going.

[pwittrock]

Injecting myself into the conversation...

@erikerlandson What do you need to accomplish the goals outlined in the charter? E.g. is it just about having a mailing list, slack channel, zoom, calendar, etc.

Because SIGs are the decision making bodies for the project, they need to have clear accountability and processes for making decisions. If the work you are doing does not need to be accountable to the Kubernetes project (e.g. release, docs, arch, etc), we should probably come up with a different designation.

[pwittrock]

The thing that still puzzles me about the WG designation is that it implies some task (research a problem, draft a design, report back, etc), with a finite lifetime. However we might categorize our group's activities, I view them as on-going.

This is a valid point. I think the accountability aspect of a SIG designation is a bigger issue than the finite aspect of a WG designation. We've kicked around the idea of BirdsOfAFeather (BOF) groups that are similar to WG's without requiring any affiliation with SIGs and still allowing them to be on-going.

[erikerlandson]

@pwittrock I would agree that k8s-affiliated resources "mailing list, slack channel, zoom, calendar" plus some kind of kubernetes community page, etc, is a large part of what we're looking for.

I also agree that "BoF" is a plausible category for the kind of charter we are envisioning. It's a reasonable synonym for "Interest Group," as that is already taken. My scans through the thesaurus haven't yet turned up any term that seems better.

[pwittrock]

@erikerlandson Sounds like there is rough agreement on the needs. BoF type groups were a topic of discussion at the SC meeting today. I believe "User Group" was a name folks seemed to like.

There is a rough plan to create a "User Group" (final name TBD) designation that provides collaboration artifacts such as:

• mailing list
• slack channel
• zoom
• calendar
• community page (e.g. a directory for the UG with a README.md)

A question we will want to nail down is if / how should UGs be associated with SIGs. e.g. if everyone stops participating in a UG, who is responsible for cleaning it up? I don't think this would have much impact on day-to-day operations of the UG.

[liyinan926]

@pwittrock what are the major differences between a UG (as being planned) and a WG?

[pwittrock]

@liyinan926

Working Groups are designed to facilitate targeted work across SIGs. As the are currently defined they are not targeted at facilitating support or discussion for an area. UGs would be targeted at this case.

From a practical standpoint I believe you would get the same resources, but may require a different organizational structure. I imagine the requirements for starting a WG would be higher than a UG - e.g. the SIGs accountable for the work need to be well defined and the vision needs to be shared by participating SIGs.

[erikerlandson]

@pwittrock I agree, the plan around User Groups sounds like a good alignment with our goals. FWIW, I would suggest that a UG need not be affiliated with a SIG. If a UG becomes inactive, the co-chairs should be responsible for some kind of official halting of activities. Perhaps there should be a contingency for unresponsive co-chairs but that seems like a corner case.

[pwittrock]

@erikerlandson ACK. We also need to work through what it is practical to provide to UGs without moderation.

[timothysc]

Sounds like we are in agreement here. @erikerlandson did you want to close this PR, or wait till we formalize user groups?

[spiffxp]

/uncc

[erikerlandson]

@timothysc I'll leave this open for now, and close it when we are in a position to re-submit it as a User Group

[bgrant0607]

FYI, user groups now officially exist as a concept:

https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/governance.md#community-groups

[erikerlandson]

@bgrant0607 IIUC it says user groups are to be documented in sigs.yaml - is the idea that there will be a new usergroups: section there?

[timothysc]

@kubernetes/sig-contributor-experience-bugs ^

[timothysc]

I think we can close this issue now and follow up with other PRs and issues to cross-reference. Contributor experience can shake out the logistics on the .yaml deets.

[nikhita]

Contributor experience can shake out the logistics on the .yaml deets.

I have created #3298 to add support for User Groups in sigs.yaml.

[erikerlandson]

Thank you @nikhita!

[erikerlandson]

Work on this has been moved to #3304