Proposal: Expand Owners and SIG Metadata

16 views
Skip to first unread message

Matt Farina

unread,
Nov 30, 2017, 4:47:29 PM11/30/17
to Brian Grant, kubernetes-si...@googlegroups.com
Brian,

Here is my first pass at the expanded metadata we talked about in SIG Arch today. Feel free to make changes.
Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Matt


--
Matt Farina

Go in Practice - A book of Recipes for the Go programming language.

Engineered Web - A blog on cloud computing and web technologies.

Brian Grant

unread,
Nov 30, 2017, 6:23:04 PM11/30/17
to Matt Farina, kubernetes-sig-architecture
Thanks!

I'm currently rethinking maintainers:

We need to decouple github permissions from decision-making authority. I think we need more of a concept of uber tech lead. I'll try to refine that in the doc tonight or tomorrow.

The teams for github permissions should still be sync'ed from checked-in files, though. Justin SB started a thread on that.

Matt Farina

unread,
Nov 30, 2017, 7:13:56 PM11/30/17
to Brian Grant, kubernetes-sig-architecture
Brian,

I'd like to better understand what you mean.

There is a designation in the contributor ladder called a maintainer today. Who is a maintainer for a codebase isn't documented anywhere. Are you suggesting the maintainer designation change? If not, I would suggest keeping the maintainer details for record keeping purposes.

What do you mean by an uber tech lead, what would they do, and why would they do it?

The picture I have has some major drawbacks.
  1. That person is a bottleneck. If they go on vacation people will be blocked until they return. It's a single point of failure.
  2. As of today, we are a community of many people from many different companies (or people not with a company), from many countries. And that number is growing. Introducing the idea of an uber tech lead, at this point, would not be well received by many. Some would see it as a power play by a person or company. Some would feel alienated. Note, I'm saying it "at this point". That form of lead can work but it must be introduced much earlier in the lifecycle of a project.

The maintainers idea you suggested earlier is documentation and automation around community norms and processes we have today. It's complementary to the thread you linked to that showed links to prow issues to enable some more interaction without needing to be a repo admin.

An uber tech lead changes community norms while elevating one person above others. I wouldn't go there.

This is the picture I see of uber tech lead. How is your picture different in a way that doesn't have elitism or bottlenecks?

- Matt


Brian Grant

unread,
Nov 30, 2017, 8:44:40 PM11/30/17
to Matt Farina, kubernetes-sig-architecture
I made a pass over the doc. PTAL.

Brian Grant

unread,
Nov 30, 2017, 8:58:31 PM11/30/17
to Matt Farina, kubernetes-sig-architecture
I think I addressed most of these in the doc.

Owners of a subproject can be multiple people. Probably should not be 75. 

Joe Beda

unread,
Dec 1, 2017, 4:41:42 PM12/1/17
to Brian Grant, Matt Farina, kubernetes-sig-architecture
Sorry I missed the meeting (reinvent) but this looks great! I'm excited about getting some more concrete connections between code and SIGs.  The idea of subproject seems to help to help SIGs scale.

At the end of the day, we can say that SIG members are the set of reviewers/approvers across all of the OWNERS files that are associated with the SIG?  Having that list maintained someplace may be a great place to start hanging governance processes for SIGs.

Joe

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubernetes-sig-architecture" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-sig-arch...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-si...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-sig-architecture/CAKCBhs6oySV3D7m4gmbqz%2BNCCTe1Ki2jOwBd8fMuXt74%3DtnpAw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Matt Farina

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 10:09:59 AM12/14/17
to kubernetes-sig-architecture
Did this proposal ever get discussed with the steering committee?
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-sig-architecture+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

Clayton

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 12:40:39 PM12/14/17
to Matt Farina, kubernetes-sig-architecture
Yes, there was general agreement and it’s on the short term list. I would expect the new year to have iteration to drive this is a concrete proposal.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-sig-arch...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-si...@googlegroups.com.

Brian Grant

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 12:54:36 PM12/14/17
to Clayton, Matt Farina, kubernetes-sig-architecture, Aaron Crickenberger
Yes. Aaron and I plan to work together to move it forward.

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubernetes-sig-architecture" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-sig-architecture+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-sig-architecture@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kubernetes-sig-architecture" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-sig-architecture+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages