SIG-Azure proposal

[Jaice DuMars]

All,

I'd like to revive the effort to create SIG-Azure that was referenced in both this PR and this issue.    

Proposed mission statement:

A Special Interest Group for building, deploying, maintaining, supporting, and using Kubernetes on Azure Container Service.

Secondary statement:

The SIG will be responsible for designing, discussing, and maintaining the Azure cloud provider and its relevant tests. The SIG will also be responsible for any roadmap and release requirements for Kubernetes on Azure.

Rationale and Raison D'être: 

Since the time of the discussion linked above, Microsoft has become strategically-focused on Kubernetes as an indispensable component in the Azure ecosystem.  This was underscored by the recent acquisition of Deis and GA rollout of Kubernetes in Azure Container Service.  

The purposes of the SIG are specifically:

- Provide a consistent and accountable interface to the Kubernetes project/product management structure for features specific to the Azure cloud provider, as well as a readout space for efforts undertaken in other SIGs 

- Help organize the rapidly-growing ACS Kubernetes community for knowledge-sharing and feedback ~ ideally creating more engagement across the project as a whole

- Establish a clear channel for ACS-specific Kubernetes community support, so it does not get misdirected into SIG-Windows

- Building and curating documentation for Kubernetes on Azure

- Provide a point of contact to build and maintain Azure-specific e2e tests for Kubernetes

- Coordinating requirements for Azure integrators like ACS-Engine, CoreOS Tectonic for Azure

- Raise visibility within Microsoft of opportunities to contribute and give back to Kubernetes

SIG Disambiguation:

To address potential overlap concerns with SIG-Windows, this group is specific to workloads running in Azure Container Service.  The mission of SIG-Windows is complimentary not preemptory.  Also, if a SIG-Cloud umbrella comes to fruition in the future, we will re-evaluate the need for this separate SIG at that point.  The last thing we need is SIG sprawl.

Implementation:

For implementation, I will be the initial point of contact and will at a minimum ensure scheduling, documentation, transparency, and facilitation are consistent with Kubernetes community SIG standards. Initial (and possibly provisional) leadership will be Jason Hansen and Cole Mickens.

An initial meeting cadence will be bi-weekly, and after the SIG is properly set up in Groups, Slack and other communications channels, the initial and subsequent meeting times will be radiated to the community.

I'd like to work out concerns ahead of the 5/18 community meeting so that the SIG may be discussed and ideally approved at that time. 

Please let me know your questions and concerns.

Kindest regards,

Jaice Singer DuMars

co-lead of SIG Cluster Ops

~ Formerly @Deis, Now @Microsoft

[Ihor Dvoretskyi]

I'd be happy to see yet another member of a Cloud Providers SIGs family!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAJHHSLyKNFC3BiM0tpBbqccDMha0UuKcPrFFfg4oi_q8yf1zQQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tim Hockin]

I'd rather see a sig-node that spawns topical subgroups.  There are many topics that cross-cultural all the clouds, and we have no such forum.

To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAJHHSLyKNFC3BiM0tpBbqccDMha0UuKcPrFFfg4oi_q8yf1zQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CA%2BhxP0v79jEfV5Vi%2BDOJhOMs3Qr8eW8Hi5S3VOmJXJ1YDkjasg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brendan Burns]

I'm very happy to see this SIG be recognized. We have a bunch of users and projects that this SIG can help support.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAJHHSLyKNFC3BiM0tpBbqccDMha0UuKcPrFFfg4oi_q8yf1zQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CA%2BhxP0v79jEfV5Vi%2BDOJhOMs3Qr8eW8Hi5S3VOmJXJ1YDkjasg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brandon Philips]

Hey Everyone-

+1 for SIG formation from me.

Someone from CoreOS can be involved in this SIG as we rely on the Azure cloud integrations in CoreOS Tectonic. The same folks involved in SIG AWS and pushing AWS features forward can help with cross-cloud SIG comms too.

Aside, as it was mentioned during the call today: I had discussed creating a SIG Cloud at some point in various forums. But, I have been too busy with all of the bootstrap governance stuff to tackle that next. Obviously getting governance in place is higher priority and should help make that decision.

Thank You,

Brandon

[Joe Beda]

Not taking a stand here but SIGs aren't really a user support mechanism.  We should have other support channels that don't have the long term commitment of a SIG.

Totally supportive of a slack channel or mailing list for azure user support/help.

Joe

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/65910432-b23b-4538-b602-725e57b1146e%40googlegroups.com.

[aa...@deis.com]

I'm +1 on creating a SIG-Azure, and additionally creating a SIG-Cloud or similar at some later date. There are certainly cross cutting concerns that in an ideal world, no cloud-specific SIG should figure out in isolation. In my mind a SIG-Cloud should be a gathering place for all the cloud-specific groups to come together, identify these concerns, and solve them together.

[mich...@deis.com]

+1 on creating SIG Azure especially for representing the ACS-specific Kubernetes community and their needs.

+1 on Aaron's point.

[Saad Ali]

Maybe this is an opportunity to formalize "workgroups"? With the idea being that "workgroups" can be a focal point for cross-cutting concerns across multiple SIGs. Workgroups can be as big or small as needed, and either ephemeral (and disband as the original concerns are addressed) or remain indefinitely.

Not sure if this is the right forum to carry on the discussion from the community meeting, so please feel free to redirect me.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/f8070053-d3cd-4b21-8c74-84a1bc1a644a%40googlegroups.com.

[Brandon Philips]

I 100% agree they shouldn't be the primary form of user support but it is really common to send people to a SIG mailing list or Slack channel if questions start to look like a bug or feature request. I think this is OK as it gets user feedback into the SIG loop.

[Jason Singer DuMars]

Hi Saad,

I believe the "cross-cutting concerns" thread will be hashed out in the leadership summit.  The proposed schedule for that is here.  

Regarding support channels, I agree that a SIG is not intended to serve that purpose.  There is, however, an important feedback loop that happens when you provide a congregation area for users with topical concerns and unite them with subject matter experts.  This is beneficial for both the project as a whole, and for the SIG that gleans valuable visibility of things needing attention. 

All my best,

Jaice

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.

[Brian Grant]

FYI, I proposed a user-support rotation here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/kubernetes-wg-contribex/0nnUmqc7s6c

Haven't seen much interest in participating so far.

I direct users to the relevant SIGs, because the user forums aren't getting enough love.

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/465f2c0e-7f40-4795-acf9-9b06d56a51b7%40googlegroups.com.

[Jack Francis]

+1

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 6:14:18 AM UTC-7, Jason Singer DuMars wrote:

[Ross Gardler]

+1

[jack quincy]

+1

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 6:14:18 AM UTC-7, Jason Singer DuMars wrote:

[Eric Tune]

I was just triaging new issues today and I wanted to label one sig/azure, but I can't (yet).

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/de76ed1e-185f-4c43-8733-71aba00ebd35%40googlegroups.com.

[Tim Hockin]

you can label for area/platform/azure

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:43 PM, 'Eric Tune' via Kubernetes
developer/contributor discussion <kuberne...@googlegroups.com>
wrote:

>> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.

>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/de76ed1e-185f-4c43-8733-71aba00ebd35%40googlegroups.com.
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAASt_VFTBEN5KvucC4Fam7TBrOXZoUiga-Jb6NZr6fgMmEsp7g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tim Hockin]

I am -1 on this overall. I think sig-cloud would be better, with
provider-specific sub-groups.

[Sarah Novotny]

Hai all.

What I'm hearing is immediate need for Azure work to happen in some coordinated fashion we're not addressing.  *And* a rethink/coalescence of cloud providers under a more umbrella group for cross platform consistency and coordination.

I've also heard that a SIG-Azure group (and I believe SIG-AWS from Thursday's chat) would support an umbrella SIG-Cloud.  I don't remember if SIG-Openstack weighed in on that one.

So, my question today is -- Do we believe we can charter and coalesce SIG-Cloud at the Leadership Summit in 2 weeks or, should we move forward with SIG-Azure now and continue to work on the goals of SIG-Cloud with a longer timeline?

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:56 PM, 'Tim Hockin' via Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion <kuberne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I am -1 on this overall.  I think sig-cloud would be better, with
provider-specific sub-groups.

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Tim Hockin <tho...@google.com> wrote:
> you can label for area/platform/azure
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:43 PM, 'Eric Tune' via Kubernetes

> developer/contributor discussion <kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com>

>>> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/de76ed1e-185f-4c43-8733-71aba00ebd35%40googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAASt_VFTBEN5KvucC4Fam7TBrOXZoUiga-Jb6NZr6fgMmEsp7g%40mail.gmail.com.
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAO_RewafaxeG7CELdzdRjxButc%2BKUUaL8cbJrBfc%3DdLM-pE7gA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tim Hockin]

I don't see why we need sig-Azure, unless we thing sig-cloud is not
going to happen.

I don't know who is pushing hardest for sig-cloud - Brandon?

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Sarah Novotny <sarahn...@google.com> wrote:
> Hai all.
>
> What I'm hearing is immediate need for Azure work to happen in some
> coordinated fashion we're not addressing. *And* a rethink/coalescence of
> cloud providers under a more umbrella group for cross platform consistency
> and coordination.
>
> I've also heard that a SIG-Azure group (and I believe SIG-AWS from
> Thursday's chat) would support an umbrella SIG-Cloud. I don't remember if
> SIG-Openstack weighed in on that one.
>
> So, my question today is -- Do we believe we can charter and coalesce
> SIG-Cloud at the Leadership Summit in 2 weeks or, should we move forward
> with SIG-Azure now and continue to work on the goals of SIG-Cloud with a
> longer timeline?
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:56 PM, 'Tim Hockin' via Kubernetes
> developer/contributor discussion <kuberne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am -1 on this overall. I think sig-cloud would be better, with
>> provider-specific sub-groups.
>>
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Tim Hockin <tho...@google.com> wrote:
>> > you can label for area/platform/azure
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:43 PM, 'Eric Tune' via Kubernetes

>> > developer/contributor discussion <kuberne...@googlegroups.com>

>> >>> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>> >>> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.

>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >>>
>> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/de76ed1e-185f-4c43-8733-71aba00ebd35%40googlegroups.com.
>> >>>
>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >> Groups
>> >> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> >> an

>> >> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.

>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAASt_VFTBEN5KvucC4Fam7TBrOXZoUiga-Jb6NZr6fgMmEsp7g%40mail.gmail.com.
>> >>
>> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.

[Alexis Richardson]

If sig-aws and sig-azure existed then would sig-cloud be needed?  If sig-cloud existed, then would there still be two additional (sub)groups for aws and azure?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAO_RewbUGpMO_4rBAjv%2BgcSJj4FZLOXb4GJ0Pij-k3pLszy%3D8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Justin Santa Barbara]

We do seem to be filling sig-aws meetings with very AWS-specific stuff, so I think we would be doing other clouds a disservice if we rolled them into the same sig as sig-aws.  We also have end users joining sig-aws, which might not be the case if a large proportion of the discussion was about other clouds.

My view: it makes sense to have sig-aws, sig-gce, sig-azure, sig-openstack etc - those would be populated by users/developers of those particular clouds, and discussion would primarily be about how to operate on that cloud.  We _also_ need sig-cloud, to agree cross-cloud abstractions - sig-cloud would more be API design, and a very different group of people that would attend.

We need both though, just like the existence of sig-apimachinery does not negate the need for sig-apps, sig-instrumentation, sig-scale etc.

I'd also prefer to see sig-cloud come from the cloud sigs recognizing the need for a cross-cloud group, not top-down planning.

Really though, a lot of this is moot until the governance discussions have determined what a sig is - we may be arguing semantics.

(+1 on sig-azure, +1 on sig-cloud therefore)

[Alexis Richardson]

+1, makes a lot of sense

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/50d8437e-9bf7-4ddb-bcbb-1bc6a79f498c%40googlegroups.com.

[Brian Grant]

I agree. My main concern was whether it would have critical mass, and it sounds like it would. As the structure we'd like becomes more clear, we could create SIG cloud later and convert existing SIGs to WGs, or create a cloud WG, or have SIG cloud in addition to per-provider SIGs.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/50d8437e-9bf7-4ddb-bcbb-1bc6a79f498c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAOSi4U7thQgddNLiLs-XEOr-NF%3DnDpYcz2BoOoin3UF9swpJow%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tim Hockin]

I was assuming sig-coud would spawn working groups for individual
cloud providers, and that's where critical conversations would be had.
My hope was to rein in sig sprawl, and mitigate overlap.

BUt I guess I don't care enough to argue it very hard. There
shouldn't be much net impact of being a SIG vs being a WG (on the rest
of the project). There is some overhead required to be a SIG - maybe
this will self-correct.

So I am fine with it.

>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/50d8437e-9bf7-4ddb-bcbb-1bc6a79f498c%40googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit

[Brian Grant]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Tim Hockin <tho...@google.com> wrote:

I was assuming sig-coud would spawn working groups for individual
cloud providers, and that's where critical conversations would be had.
My hope was to rein in sig sprawl, and mitigate overlap.

BUt I guess I don't care enough to argue it very hard.  There
shouldn't be much net impact of being a SIG vs being a WG (on the rest
of the project).  There is some overhead required to be a SIG - maybe
this will self-correct.

We haven't developed any kind of operating model for working groups yet, even less than for SIGs -- mailing lists, slack channels, meeting recordings, community-meeting reports, code ownership, ...

Also, if in practice provider-specific discussions and code are 80% unique and 20% overlapping, then SIGs per provider and a WG for cloud would make more sense.  

>>> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/50d8437e-9bf7-4ddb-bcbb-1bc6a79f498c%40googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>> email to kubernetes-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-dev@googlegroups.com.

[Ihor Dvoretskyi]

> I don't remember if SIG-Openstack weighed in on that one.

We did (both +Steve Gordon and me).

Personally, I would like to see SIG-Azure or WG-Azure under SIG-Cloud - it doesn't matter globally. I expect that people who have Azure+Kubernetes-related questions will have a single door to enter with the questions (as SIG-OpenStack holds the door for OpenStack+Kubernetes relationship). The same is about Azure-related technical initiatives at Kubernetes community.

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:31 PM 'Sarah Novotny' via Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion <kuberne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Hai all.

What I'm hearing is immediate need for Azure work to happen in some coordinated fashion we're not addressing.  *And* a rethink/coalescence of cloud providers under a more umbrella group for cross platform consistency and coordination.

I've also heard that a SIG-Azure group (and I believe SIG-AWS from Thursday's chat) would support an umbrella SIG-Cloud.  I don't remember if SIG-Openstack weighed in on that one.

So, my question today is -- Do we believe we can charter and coalesce SIG-Cloud at the Leadership Summit in 2 weeks or, should we move forward with SIG-Azure now and continue to work on the goals of SIG-Cloud with a longer timeline?

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:56 PM, 'Tim Hockin' via Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion <kuberne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I am -1 on this overall.  I think sig-cloud would be better, with
provider-specific sub-groups.

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Tim Hockin <tho...@google.com> wrote:
> you can label for area/platform/azure
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:43 PM, 'Eric Tune' via Kubernetes

> developer/contributor discussion <kuberne...@googlegroups.com>

>>> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/de76ed1e-185f-4c43-8733-71aba00ebd35%40googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.

>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAASt_VFTBEN5KvucC4Fam7TBrOXZoUiga-Jb6NZr6fgMmEsp7g%40mail.gmail.com.
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAO_RewafaxeG7CELdzdRjxButc%2BKUUaL8cbJrBfc%3DdLM-pE7gA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CACmxMYrD7pRyOe77M-neU1WNMf8U-WYji_jYbjq9U8BJmQVzEw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ihor Dvoretskyi]

> We haven't developed any kind of operating model for working groups yet, even less than for SIGs -- mailing lists, slack channels, meeting recordings, community-meeting reports, code ownership, ...

It's a great time to start!

>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/50d8437e-9bf7-4ddb-bcbb-1bc6a79f498c%40googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>> email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAOSi4U7thQgddNLiLs-XEOr-NF%3DnDpYcz2BoOoin3UF9swpJow%40mail.gmail.com.
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-de...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kuberne...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-dev/CAKCBhs7mwei6yK8ZtkedM9Y%3DmQ1dtOdtOn352WVo54Wqv-dtmw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Steve Gordon]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ihor Dvoretskyi" <ihor.dv...@gmail.com>
> To: "Sarah Novotny" <sarahn...@google.com>, "Tim Hockin" <tho...@google.com>, sgo...@redhat.com
> Cc: "Eric Tune" <et...@google.com>, "jack quincy" <jaze...@gmail.com>, "Kubernetes developer/contributor
> discussion" <kuberne...@googlegroups.com>, "Kubernetes user discussion and Q&A"
> <kubernet...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 7:06:18 AM
> Subject: Re: SIG-Azure proposal
>
> > I don't remember if SIG-Openstack weighed in on that one.
>

> We did (both +Steve Gordon <sgo...@redhat.com> and me).

>
> Personally, I would like to see SIG-Azure or WG-Azure under SIG-Cloud - it
> doesn't matter globally. I expect that people who have
> Azure+Kubernetes-related questions will have a single door to enter with
> the questions (as SIG-OpenStack holds the door for OpenStack+Kubernetes
> relationship). The same is about Azure-related technical initiatives at
> Kubernetes community.

Yes, my POV is +1 on SIG-Azure for *right now* given there appear to be people willing to pick up this mantle and it's consistent with the way the other providers are handled but also +1 going forward to how we would potentially re-align within a hypothetical SIG-Cloud in the future. I do envisage that there would still be individual workgroups and meetings for each provider under such a structure but we do I think need some greater level of co-ordination between these teams to ensure we're delivering a consistent experience to Kubernetes users particularly as we look to externalize and potentially modularize aspects of the cloud provider framework implementations as they exist today.

-Steve

[Sarah Novotny]

PoR 

-- SIG-Azure gets created O(now)

-- SIG-Cloud gets discussed and planned at Leadership Summit O(weeks)

-- All the cloud providers are belong to us (and collaborate through SIG-Cloud or the result of the Leadership Summit discussion) O(months)

Jason, let's get this SIG started.

:)

[Jason Singer DuMars]

Putting on my party hat!

Thank you everyone for your careful consideration on this.  I believe we've surfaced some very real issues with governance that I hope we visit during the summit.  

I have the utmost respect for all of you, and your dedication to making this the absolute best project possible.