Feature repo and SIG PM should track "efforts", not "features"

[countspongebob]

Creating this issue per the SIG PM discussion today. Linking this issue to Ihor's proposed feature lifecycle doc and the governance PM discussion as requested during the call.

Linking to governance umbrella seems sensible, as the Seven need to ensure they either define or define who will own the overall change control process.

Draft feature lifecycle doc is here. (Note that this proposal would also rename this to a "effort submission process".

Use of the word "feature" implies that that some new API call or new functional behavior of kubernetes is scope of the repo or the PM SIG. This also starts to beg the question "what is a feature".

Proposing that the scope is instead a chunk of work of sufficiently large or significant scope that it should tracked and visible across the entire community with the following guidelines:

Your proposed work might belong in the "effort repo" if:

• It's a feature that would show up in blog
• It's something that would end up in the release notes
• If it crosses SIG boundaries
• If it affects a lot of developers
• If it affects a lot of users

Checklists, review, and timing of all significant chunks of work (whether features or not) demand the same level of rigor and process.

Proposing feature repo should be renamed and SIG PM scope clarified.

-Bob

[idvoretskyi]

@countspongebob Bob, can we move this to https://github.com/kubernetes/community repo? Features repo issues are used for features issues only; while community repo is a right place for the similar cross-project discussions.

Thank you.

[countspongebob]

I'm fine with moving it.

[idvoretskyi]

This issue was moved to kubernetes/community#531