Can WGs have other WGs and committees as stakeholders?

23 views
Skip to first unread message

Nikhita Raghunath

unread,
Apr 9, 2019, 6:49:04 PM4/9/19
to stee...@kubernetes.io
Hey Steering,

Today WGs can only have other SIGs are stakeholders. While adding stakeholder SIGs for WG Policy (https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/3499), it was pointed out that WG Multitenancy would be a stakeholder as well.

Can WGs have other WGs and committees as stakeholders too?

-- Nikhita

Aaron Crickenberger

unread,
Apr 10, 2019, 10:38:38 AM4/10/19
to steering, nikhitar...@gmail.com
My vote would be no. It's unclear to me what we would gain by the added complexity.

- aaron

Derek Carr

unread,
Apr 10, 2019, 10:42:39 AM4/10/19
to Aaron Crickenberger, steering, nikhitar...@gmail.com
I think stakeholders should only be parties that own the code for lack of a better term.
If WG multitenancy is an implied stakeholder of WG Policy, then it really means that the SIGs that sponsor WG multitenancy are stakeholders to WG policy.  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "steering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to steering+u...@kubernetes.io.
To post to this group, send email to stee...@kubernetes.io.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/group/steering/.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msgid/steering/c9ae28c7-8db7-4e8f-a016-7b5a96e86d28%40kubernetes.io.

Brian Grant

unread,
Apr 10, 2019, 11:04:08 AM4/10/19
to Derek Carr, Aaron Crickenberger, steering, nikhitar...@gmail.com
I agree with Derek and Aaron.

Thanks for asking.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msgid/steering/CAHROWxRUGvr5o-DW9_9xd2gmyH1hBqO4pjPiKeiniBdmGAP_Eg%40mail.gmail.com.

timo...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 10, 2019, 3:52:56 PM4/10/19
to steering, dec...@redhat.com, spi...@gmail.com, nikhitar...@gmail.com
+1 on the No. 


On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 10:04:08 AM UTC-5, Brian Grant wrote:
I agree with Derek and Aaron.

Thanks for asking.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 7:42 AM Derek Carr <dec...@redhat.com> wrote:
I think stakeholders should only be parties that own the code for lack of a better term.
If WG multitenancy is an implied stakeholder of WG Policy, then it really means that the SIGs that sponsor WG multitenancy are stakeholders to WG policy.  

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:38 AM Aaron Crickenberger <spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
My vote would be no. It's unclear to me what we would gain by the added complexity.

- aaron

On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 6:49:04 PM UTC-4, Nikhita Raghunath wrote:
Hey Steering,

Today WGs can only have other SIGs are stakeholders. While adding stakeholder SIGs for WG Policy (https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/3499), it was pointed out that WG Multitenancy would be a stakeholder as well.

Can WGs have other WGs and committees as stakeholders too?

-- Nikhita

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "steering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to steering+unsubscribe@kubernetes.io.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "steering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to steering+unsubscribe@kubernetes.io.

Davanum Srinivas

unread,
Apr 10, 2019, 5:20:46 PM4/10/19
to timo...@gmail.com, steering, dec...@redhat.com, spi...@gmail.com, nikhitar...@gmail.com
+1 to the No.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 3:52 PM <timo...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 on the No. 

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 10:04:08 AM UTC-5, Brian Grant wrote:
I agree with Derek and Aaron.

Thanks for asking.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 7:42 AM Derek Carr <dec...@redhat.com> wrote:
I think stakeholders should only be parties that own the code for lack of a better term.
If WG multitenancy is an implied stakeholder of WG Policy, then it really means that the SIGs that sponsor WG multitenancy are stakeholders to WG policy.  

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:38 AM Aaron Crickenberger <spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
My vote would be no. It's unclear to me what we would gain by the added complexity.

- aaron

On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 6:49:04 PM UTC-4, Nikhita Raghunath wrote:
Hey Steering,

Today WGs can only have other SIGs are stakeholders. While adding stakeholder SIGs for WG Policy (https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/3499), it was pointed out that WG Multitenancy would be a stakeholder as well.

Can WGs have other WGs and committees as stakeholders too?

-- Nikhita

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "steering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to steering+u...@kubernetes.io.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "steering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to steering+u...@kubernetes.io.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "steering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to steering+u...@kubernetes.io.

To post to this group, send email to stee...@kubernetes.io.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/group/steering/.

Brandon Philips

unread,
Apr 10, 2019, 7:22:12 PM4/10/19
to Davanum Srinivas, Tim St. Clair, steering, Derek Carr, Aaron Crickenberger, nikhitar...@gmail.com
No was the final call on the meeting today.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msgid/steering/CANw6fcEieZXqGUjv_4cVipKk-99n3Kvq%3DZHEwKrcwUnFzg%3D0OQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages