From ff772a9ee1c0e1aaab313352a05fd9c5ea5a6a63 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bob Killen Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 16:03:35 -0400 Subject: apply annual report file name formatting --- sig-api-machinery/annual-report-2020.md | 160 ------------------------- sig-api-machinery/annual-report-2021.md | 160 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ sig-scheduling/2020-annual-report.md | 125 -------------------- sig-scheduling/annual-report-2021.md | 125 ++++++++++++++++++++ sig-windows/annual-report-2020.md | 69 ----------- sig-windows/annual-report-2021.md | 69 +++++++++++ wg-api-expression/2020-annual-report.md | 38 ------ wg-api-expression/annual-report-2020.md | 38 ++++++ wg-k8s-infra/2020-annual-report.md | 199 -------------------------------- wg-k8s-infra/annual-report-2020.md | 199 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ wg-multitenancy/2021-annual-report.md | 53 --------- wg-multitenancy/annual-report-2021.md | 53 +++++++++ 12 files changed, 644 insertions(+), 644 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 sig-api-machinery/annual-report-2020.md create mode 100644 sig-api-machinery/annual-report-2021.md delete mode 100644 sig-scheduling/2020-annual-report.md create mode 100644 sig-scheduling/annual-report-2021.md delete mode 100644 sig-windows/annual-report-2020.md create mode 100644 sig-windows/annual-report-2021.md delete mode 100644 wg-api-expression/2020-annual-report.md create mode 100644 wg-api-expression/annual-report-2020.md delete mode 100644 wg-k8s-infra/2020-annual-report.md create mode 100644 wg-k8s-infra/annual-report-2020.md delete mode 100644 wg-multitenancy/2021-annual-report.md create mode 100644 wg-multitenancy/annual-report-2021.md diff --git a/sig-api-machinery/annual-report-2020.md b/sig-api-machinery/annual-report-2020.md deleted file mode 100644 index d6d5ba8d..00000000 --- a/sig-api-machinery/annual-report-2020.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,160 +0,0 @@ -# Kubernetes SIG API Machinery - 2020 Annual report -David Eads, Daniel Smith, Federico Bongiovanni - - -[Source](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/committee-steering/governance/annual-reports.md) - -## Checklist -- [x] Read about the process [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/committee-steering/governance/annual-reports.md#reporting-process) -- [ ] Copy this template into a new document and share with your mailing list/slack channel/meeting on whatever platform (gdocs, hackmd, etc.) that the team prefers. -- [x] Remove sections that are not applicable (example: if you are a working group, delete the special interest group questions) -- [ ] Pick graphs from Devstats to pull supporting data for your responses. -- [ ] Schedule a time with your Steering liaison and other Chairs, TLs, and Organizers of your group to check-in on your - roles as Chair or Working Group Organizer. - If anyone would rather meet 1:1, please have them reach out to the liaison directly, we are happy to. - We’d like to talk about: challenges, wins, things you didn’t know before but wish you did, want to continue in the - role or help finding a replacement; and lastly any feedback you have for us as a body and how we can help you - succeed and feel comfortable in these leadership roles. -- [x] PR this document into your community group directory in kubernetes/community (example: sig-architecture/) - - [x] by March 8th, 2021 - - [x] titled: annual-report-YEAR.md -- [x] are there any responses that you’d like to share privately first? steering-private@kubernetes.io or tag your liaison in for discussion. - -## Operational -1. How are you doing with operational tasks in SIG-governance.md? - 1. Is your README accurate? have a CONTRIBUTING.md file? - - Yes, the [README](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-api-machinery/README.md) is accurate. - 2. All subprojects correctly mapped and listed in sigs.yaml? - - Yes, our [subprojects](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-api-machinery/README.md#subprojects) are current. - 3. What’s your meeting culture? Large/small, active/quiet, learnings? Meeting notes up to date? - - Are you keeping recordings up to date/trends in community members watching recordings? - - We have two main meetings, both fairly small, with [notes and agenda up to date](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x9RNaaysyO0gXHIr1y50QFbiL1x8OWnk2v3XnrdkT5Y/edit). - [Our recordings](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL69nYSiGNLP21oW3hbLyjjj4XhrwKxH2R) are usually uploaded within two weeks. - - There are bug scrub meetings every Tuesday and Thursday. - -2. How does the group get updates, reports, or feedback from subprojects? - Are there any springing up or being retired? Are OWNERS.md files up to date in these areas? - - We get updates on an ad-hoc basis. - We have approved a prototyping project ([apiserver-runtime](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/apiserver-runtime)) and have no plans to retire any at this time. - We have not actively pruned OWNERS, some people have been added to various subprojects. - -3. Same question as above but for working groups. - [wg-api-expression](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/wg-api-expression/README.md) has its own - regular meeting cadence and did its own [annual report](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/wg-api-expression/2020-annual-report.md). - - [wg-component-standard](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/wg-component-standard/README.md) has its own - regular meeting cadence. - The working group is not as active as it once was, see the [mailing list thread](https://groups.google.com/g/kubernetes-dev/c/sQGrk6HWyj0). - - [wg-multitenancy](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/wg-multitenancy) has its own regular meeting cadence - and did its own [annual report](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/wg-multitenancy/2021-annual-report.md). - -4. When was your last public community-wide update? (provide link to deck and/or recording) - [May 2020](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1UWRaMVtTD3yVhJ3MGBpt7LRIaRHTaQZoGlDT7Bl7jLE/edit#slide=id.g401c104a3c_0_0) - -## Membership -1. Are all listed SIG leaders (chairs, tech leads, and subproject owners) active? - - Yes. - -2. How do you measure membership? By mailing list members, OWNERs, or something else? - - We don’t measure membership. - -3. How does the group measure reviewer and approver bandwidth? - Do you need help in any area now? What are you doing about it? - - Our predicted rate of feature delivery and stability roughly matches the achieved rate. - While we would be happy to see developers move up the ladder, we don’t see a pressing need to adjust the current rate. - - We perform twice a week triage and our [issue open/close rates are holding steady](https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/d/39/issues-opened-closed-by-sig?orgId=1&var-period=d7&var-sig_name=api-machinery&var-kind_name=All). - -4. Is there a healthy onboarding and growth path for contributors in your SIG? What are some activities that the group - does to encourage this? What programs are you participating in to grow contributors throughout the contributor ladder? - - We see patches from first time contributors, we regularly accept agenda items from contributors from other sigs and - first time contributors. - -5. What programs do you participate in for new contributors? - - We don’t participate in any particular programs. - We find many contributors via slack, PRs, and issues. - -6. Does the group have contributors from multiple companies/affiliations? - Can end users/companies contribute in some way that they currently are not? - - Yes, there are contributors from [multiple companies](https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/d/74/contributions-chart?orgId=1&var-period=d7&var-metric=contributions&var-repogroup_name=SIG%20API%20Machinery&var-country_name=All&var-company_name=All&var-company=all). - We see all sorts of contributions, varying from issues, to comments, to PRs, to designs, to sig meeting participation, - and user-survey data. - - -## Current initiatives and project health -1. What are initiatives that should be highlighted, lauded, shout outs, that your group is proud of? Currently underway? - What are some of the longer tail projects that your group is working on? - - Currently underway: - 1. [server-side-apply](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/555) to GA - 2. [server-side-apply client](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/2144-clientgo-apply#alternative-1-generated-structs-where-all-fields-are-pointers) - 3. [optionally skip backend TLS verifiction](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/1295) - 4. [namespace labels](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/pull/2162) - 5. Getting ready for CRD and admission webhook v1beta1 API removal: [reminder on kubernetes-dev](https://groups.google.com/g/kubernetes-dev/c/z_AE1EHhZF4/m/kBd3HkWxAwAJ). - 6. [Immutable fields API](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/1101) - 7. [API unions](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/1027) - 8. [warnings to GA](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/1693) - 9. [apiserver network proxy to beta](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/1281) - 10. [priority and fairness to GA](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/1040) - -2. Year to date KEP work: What's now stable? Beta? Alpha? Road to alpha? - 1. Stable - 1. [Selector index](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/commit/fea3042f1f84129ab1cb6e481bd51343061673b7) - 1.20 - 2. [Permabeta machinery (sig-arch policy)](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-architecture/1635-prevent-permabeta/README.md) - 1.19 - 3. [Client-go context](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1601-client-go-context/README.md) - 1.18 - 4. [Client-go options](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1601-client-go-context/README.md) - 1.18 - 5. [Dry run](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/576-dry-run/README.md) - 1.18 - 6. [Standardize conditions](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1623-standardize-conditions/README.md) - 1.19 - 2. Beta - 1. [Priority and fairness](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1040-priority-and-fairness/README.md) - 1.20 - 2. [Selector index](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/92503) - 1.19 - 3. [Self-link removal](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1164-remove-selflink/README.md) - 1.20 - 4. [Warning headers](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1693-warnings/README.md) - 1.19 - 5. [Server-side apply evolution while in beta](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/555-server-side-apply/README.md) - 1.18, 1.19, 1.20 - 3. Alpha - 1. [Selector index](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/87939) - 1.18 - 2. [API server identity](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1965-kube-apiserver-identity/README.md) - 1.20 - 3. [Efficient watch resumption](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/1904) - 1.20 - 4. Pre-alpha - 1. [Manifest-based admission webhook](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1872-manifest-based-admission-webhooks/README.md) - - -3. What initiatives are you working on that aren't being tracked in KEPs? - - We are working on mitigating the impact of removing beta APIs in 1.22. - -4. What areas and/or subprojects does the group need the most help with? - - The SIG sponsors some working groups that are largely independent. - - There are several areas where regularly the SIG becomes under pressure, especially closer to code freezes and the - vast amount of code owned by API Machinery. - - The ecosystem of the different Kubernetes Clients that we own grows more or less organically. Client-go and - Python-client are probably the bigger ones. - - There are some packages that API Machinery owns and come out usually in our triage meetings, and that we most likely - don't know much about: this happens often when Kubernetes is upgrading libraries for example. - - -5. What metrics/community health stats does your group care about and/or measure? Examples? - - On the technical health of the SIG, we look at - - the ratio of open/close PRs - - the ratio of open/close Issues - - overall age of open Issues - - Number of active contributors to the sig - - diverse representation of companies in the sig participants diff --git a/sig-api-machinery/annual-report-2021.md b/sig-api-machinery/annual-report-2021.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..d6d5ba8d --- /dev/null +++ b/sig-api-machinery/annual-report-2021.md @@ -0,0 +1,160 @@ +# Kubernetes SIG API Machinery - 2020 Annual report +David Eads, Daniel Smith, Federico Bongiovanni + + +[Source](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/committee-steering/governance/annual-reports.md) + +## Checklist +- [x] Read about the process [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/committee-steering/governance/annual-reports.md#reporting-process) +- [ ] Copy this template into a new document and share with your mailing list/slack channel/meeting on whatever platform (gdocs, hackmd, etc.) that the team prefers. +- [x] Remove sections that are not applicable (example: if you are a working group, delete the special interest group questions) +- [ ] Pick graphs from Devstats to pull supporting data for your responses. +- [ ] Schedule a time with your Steering liaison and other Chairs, TLs, and Organizers of your group to check-in on your + roles as Chair or Working Group Organizer. + If anyone would rather meet 1:1, please have them reach out to the liaison directly, we are happy to. + We’d like to talk about: challenges, wins, things you didn’t know before but wish you did, want to continue in the + role or help finding a replacement; and lastly any feedback you have for us as a body and how we can help you + succeed and feel comfortable in these leadership roles. +- [x] PR this document into your community group directory in kubernetes/community (example: sig-architecture/) + - [x] by March 8th, 2021 + - [x] titled: annual-report-YEAR.md +- [x] are there any responses that you’d like to share privately first? steering-private@kubernetes.io or tag your liaison in for discussion. + +## Operational +1. How are you doing with operational tasks in SIG-governance.md? + 1. Is your README accurate? have a CONTRIBUTING.md file? + + Yes, the [README](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-api-machinery/README.md) is accurate. + 2. All subprojects correctly mapped and listed in sigs.yaml? + + Yes, our [subprojects](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-api-machinery/README.md#subprojects) are current. + 3. What’s your meeting culture? Large/small, active/quiet, learnings? Meeting notes up to date? + + Are you keeping recordings up to date/trends in community members watching recordings? + + We have two main meetings, both fairly small, with [notes and agenda up to date](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x9RNaaysyO0gXHIr1y50QFbiL1x8OWnk2v3XnrdkT5Y/edit). + [Our recordings](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL69nYSiGNLP21oW3hbLyjjj4XhrwKxH2R) are usually uploaded within two weeks. + + There are bug scrub meetings every Tuesday and Thursday. + +2. How does the group get updates, reports, or feedback from subprojects? + Are there any springing up or being retired? Are OWNERS.md files up to date in these areas? + + We get updates on an ad-hoc basis. + We have approved a prototyping project ([apiserver-runtime](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/apiserver-runtime)) and have no plans to retire any at this time. + We have not actively pruned OWNERS, some people have been added to various subprojects. + +3. Same question as above but for working groups. + [wg-api-expression](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/wg-api-expression/README.md) has its own + regular meeting cadence and did its own [annual report](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/wg-api-expression/2020-annual-report.md). + + [wg-component-standard](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/wg-component-standard/README.md) has its own + regular meeting cadence. + The working group is not as active as it once was, see the [mailing list thread](https://groups.google.com/g/kubernetes-dev/c/sQGrk6HWyj0). + + [wg-multitenancy](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/wg-multitenancy) has its own regular meeting cadence + and did its own [annual report](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/wg-multitenancy/2021-annual-report.md). + +4. When was your last public community-wide update? (provide link to deck and/or recording) + [May 2020](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1UWRaMVtTD3yVhJ3MGBpt7LRIaRHTaQZoGlDT7Bl7jLE/edit#slide=id.g401c104a3c_0_0) + +## Membership +1. Are all listed SIG leaders (chairs, tech leads, and subproject owners) active? + + Yes. + +2. How do you measure membership? By mailing list members, OWNERs, or something else? + + We don’t measure membership. + +3. How does the group measure reviewer and approver bandwidth? + Do you need help in any area now? What are you doing about it? + + Our predicted rate of feature delivery and stability roughly matches the achieved rate. + While we would be happy to see developers move up the ladder, we don’t see a pressing need to adjust the current rate. + + We perform twice a week triage and our [issue open/close rates are holding steady](https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/d/39/issues-opened-closed-by-sig?orgId=1&var-period=d7&var-sig_name=api-machinery&var-kind_name=All). + +4. Is there a healthy onboarding and growth path for contributors in your SIG? What are some activities that the group + does to encourage this? What programs are you participating in to grow contributors throughout the contributor ladder? + + We see patches from first time contributors, we regularly accept agenda items from contributors from other sigs and + first time contributors. + +5. What programs do you participate in for new contributors? + + We don’t participate in any particular programs. + We find many contributors via slack, PRs, and issues. + +6. Does the group have contributors from multiple companies/affiliations? + Can end users/companies contribute in some way that they currently are not? + + Yes, there are contributors from [multiple companies](https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/d/74/contributions-chart?orgId=1&var-period=d7&var-metric=contributions&var-repogroup_name=SIG%20API%20Machinery&var-country_name=All&var-company_name=All&var-company=all). + We see all sorts of contributions, varying from issues, to comments, to PRs, to designs, to sig meeting participation, + and user-survey data. + + +## Current initiatives and project health +1. What are initiatives that should be highlighted, lauded, shout outs, that your group is proud of? Currently underway? + What are some of the longer tail projects that your group is working on? + + Currently underway: + 1. [server-side-apply](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/555) to GA + 2. [server-side-apply client](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/2144-clientgo-apply#alternative-1-generated-structs-where-all-fields-are-pointers) + 3. [optionally skip backend TLS verifiction](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/1295) + 4. [namespace labels](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/pull/2162) + 5. Getting ready for CRD and admission webhook v1beta1 API removal: [reminder on kubernetes-dev](https://groups.google.com/g/kubernetes-dev/c/z_AE1EHhZF4/m/kBd3HkWxAwAJ). + 6. [Immutable fields API](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/1101) + 7. [API unions](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/1027) + 8. [warnings to GA](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/1693) + 9. [apiserver network proxy to beta](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/1281) + 10. [priority and fairness to GA](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/1040) + +2. Year to date KEP work: What's now stable? Beta? Alpha? Road to alpha? + 1. Stable + 1. [Selector index](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/commit/fea3042f1f84129ab1cb6e481bd51343061673b7) - 1.20 + 2. [Permabeta machinery (sig-arch policy)](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-architecture/1635-prevent-permabeta/README.md) - 1.19 + 3. [Client-go context](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1601-client-go-context/README.md) - 1.18 + 4. [Client-go options](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1601-client-go-context/README.md) - 1.18 + 5. [Dry run](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/576-dry-run/README.md) - 1.18 + 6. [Standardize conditions](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1623-standardize-conditions/README.md) - 1.19 + 2. Beta + 1. [Priority and fairness](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1040-priority-and-fairness/README.md) - 1.20 + 2. [Selector index](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/92503) - 1.19 + 3. [Self-link removal](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1164-remove-selflink/README.md) - 1.20 + 4. [Warning headers](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1693-warnings/README.md) - 1.19 + 5. [Server-side apply evolution while in beta](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/555-server-side-apply/README.md) - 1.18, 1.19, 1.20 + 3. Alpha + 1. [Selector index](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/87939) - 1.18 + 2. [API server identity](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1965-kube-apiserver-identity/README.md) - 1.20 + 3. [Efficient watch resumption](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/1904) - 1.20 + 4. Pre-alpha + 1. [Manifest-based admission webhook](https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-api-machinery/1872-manifest-based-admission-webhooks/README.md) + + +3. What initiatives are you working on that aren't being tracked in KEPs? + + We are working on mitigating the impact of removing beta APIs in 1.22. + +4. What areas and/or subprojects does the group need the most help with? + + The SIG sponsors some working groups that are largely independent. + + There are several areas where regularly the SIG becomes under pressure, especially closer to code freezes and the + vast amount of code owned by API Machinery. + + The ecosystem of the different Kubernetes Clients that we own grows more or less organically. Client-go and + Python-client are probably the bigger ones. + + There are some packages that API Machinery owns and come out usually in our triage meetings, and that we most likely + don't know much about: this happens often when Kubernetes is upgrading libraries for example. + + +5. What metrics/community health stats does your group care about and/or measure? Examples? + + On the technical health of the SIG, we look at + - the ratio of open/close PRs + - the ratio of open/close Issues + - overall age of open Issues + - Number of active contributors to the sig + - diverse representation of companies in the sig participants diff --git a/sig-scheduling/2020-annual-report.md b/sig-scheduling/2020-annual-report.md deleted file mode 100644 index 540cecaa..00000000 --- a/sig-scheduling/2020-annual-report.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,125 +0,0 @@ -# 2020 SIG-Scheduling Annual Report - -## Operational - -**How are you doing with operational tasks in [sig-governance.md]?** - -- **Is your README accurate? have a CONTRIBUTING.md file?** - Yes. Developer-oriented guides are under [contributors/devel/sig-scheduling]. - -- **All subprojects correctly mapped and listed in [sigs.yaml]?** - Yes. - -- **What's your meeting culture? Large/small, active/quiet, learnings? -Meeting notes up to date? Are you keeping recordings up to date/trends -in community members watching recordings?** - Our meetings tends to be small and quiet. The agenda usually consists of items suggested - by users, and debatable items that need a consensus during issues/PR reviews. - The meeting notes and recordings are up to date. - -**How does the group get updates, reports, or feedback from subprojects? Are there any -springing up or being retired? Are OWNERS files up to date in these areas?** - -Owners from (active) subprojects introduce the latest development, and sometime demonstrate -cool features. -OWNER files in k/k are not that up to date. We may need a cleanup. - -**When was your last monthly community-wide update? (provide link to deck and/or recording)** - -Aug 20, 2020. [Slides] & [Recording]. - -[Slides]: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1H27SDMqkzq8zCRveWWtK5g9hCAomKbrzTTVZ5r4h6Xo/edit -[Recording]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDL3Kp5-9eM&feature=youtu.be - -## Membership - -**Are all listed SIG leaders (chairs, tech leads, and subproject owners) active?** - -Yes, except for inactive subprojects. - -**How do you measure membership? By mailing list members, OWNERs, or something else?** - -We don't have an official way of measuring membership, there is some churn in the number of active -members and so membership is hard to keep track of. - -**How does the group measure reviewer and approver bandwidth? Do you need help in any area now? - What are you doing about it?** - -PRs are usually directed to the reviewer most familiar with the code base the PR is modifying. -We don't quite measure bandwidth, but one way of doing that is by looking at pending PRs broken -by assignment. - -**Is there a healthy onboarding and growth path for contributors in your SIG? What are some -activities that the group does to encourage this? What programs are you participating in to -grow contributors throughout the contributor ladder?** - -There is no official onboarding process. One thing we try to do frequently is breaking up -larger features into smaller enough tasks for new members to contribute. - -**What programs do you participate in for new contributors?** - -Currently we don't. - -**Does the group have contributors from multiple companies/affiliations? Can end users/companies -contribute in some way that they currently are not?** - -Yes. - -## Current initiatives and project health - -**What are initiatives that should be highlighted, lauded, shout out, that your group is proud of? - Currently underway? What are some of the longer tail projects that your group is working on?** - -- Initiatives: - - Focusing on turning the scheduler into a pluggable framework to allow developing new custom - features outside the main repo. - [k-sigs/scheduler-plugins] initiated this to build a scheduler plugin ecosystem. It has a wide - participation from different companies, by either direct contributions from Alibaba, Tencent, - Apple, etc., as well as adoption by companies like [OpenAI]. - - Improving scheduler performance. We're working on some items like optimizing internal queues, - tailored preemption logic, as well as exposing meaningful metrics to help define SLA/SLOs. -- Longer tail projects: - - Continuing to refactor the core code around the scheduling framework. - - Graduating the scheduler's ComponentConfig to GA. - -**Year to date KEP work review: What's now stable? Beta? Alpha? Road to alpha?** - -- Alpha - - [Prefer Nominated Node] - - [Node Resource Strategy] - - [Pod Affinity Namespace Selector] - - [Volume Capacity Priority] (co-owned by sig-storage) -- Beta - - [Default topology spread] (will graduate with CC) - - [Multi Scheduling Profiles] - - [Non-preempting priority class] - - [Component Config] - -**What areas and/or subprojects does the group need the most help with?** - -- **Docs improvement**: - - developer oriented docs to understand more details of scheduler internals, so that they can come - up with k8s-scheduler-native extensions to fit their business needs - - user or cluster-admin oriented docs to make the most of scheduler, like best practices and tips - that are not documented well -- **Standardize issue triage process**: - -**What's the average open days of a PR and Issue in your group? What metrics does your group care about and/or measure?** - -We haven't started leveraging devstat data or Github board to get a high-level picture of PR/Issue. - -[sig-governance.md]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/committee-steering/governance/sig-governance.md -[contributors/devel/sig-scheduling]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/contributors/devel/sig-scheduling -[sigs.yaml]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-list.md -[k-sigs/scheduler-plugins]: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/scheduler-plugins - -[Prefer Nominated Node]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-scheduling/1923-prefer-nominated-node -[Node Resource Strategy]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-scheduling/2458-node-resource-score-strategy -[Pod Affinity Namespace Selector]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-scheduling/2249-pod-affinity-namespace-selector -[Volume Capacity Priority]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-storage/1845-prioritization-on-volume-capacity -[Default topology spread]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-scheduling/1258-default-pod-topology-spread -[Multi Scheduling Profiles]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-scheduling/1451-multi-scheduling-profiles -[Non-preempting priority class]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-scheduling/902-non-preempting-priorityclass -[Component Config]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-scheduling/785-scheduler-component-config-api - -[OpenAI]: https://openai.com/blog/scaling-kubernetes-to-7500-nodes/#gangscheduling diff --git a/sig-scheduling/annual-report-2021.md b/sig-scheduling/annual-report-2021.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..540cecaa --- /dev/null +++ b/sig-scheduling/annual-report-2021.md @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@ +# 2020 SIG-Scheduling Annual Report + +## Operational + +**How are you doing with operational tasks in [sig-governance.md]?** + +- **Is your README accurate? have a CONTRIBUTING.md file?** + Yes. Developer-oriented guides are under [contributors/devel/sig-scheduling]. + +- **All subprojects correctly mapped and listed in [sigs.yaml]?** + Yes. + +- **What's your meeting culture? Large/small, active/quiet, learnings? +Meeting notes up to date? Are you keeping recordings up to date/trends +in community members watching recordings?** + Our meetings tends to be small and quiet. The agenda usually consists of items suggested + by users, and debatable items that need a consensus during issues/PR reviews. + The meeting notes and recordings are up to date. + +**How does the group get updates, reports, or feedback from subprojects? Are there any +springing up or being retired? Are OWNERS files up to date in these areas?** + +Owners from (active) subprojects introduce the latest development, and sometime demonstrate +cool features. +OWNER files in k/k are not that up to date. We may need a cleanup. + +**When was your last monthly community-wide update? (provide link to deck and/or recording)** + +Aug 20, 2020. [Slides] & [Recording]. + +[Slides]: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1H27SDMqkzq8zCRveWWtK5g9hCAomKbrzTTVZ5r4h6Xo/edit +[Recording]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDL3Kp5-9eM&feature=youtu.be + +## Membership + +**Are all listed SIG leaders (chairs, tech leads, and subproject owners) active?** + +Yes, except for inactive subprojects. + +**How do you measure membership? By mailing list members, OWNERs, or something else?** + +We don't have an official way of measuring membership, there is some churn in the number of active +members and so membership is hard to keep track of. + +**How does the group measure reviewer and approver bandwidth? Do you need help in any area now? + What are you doing about it?** + +PRs are usually directed to the reviewer most familiar with the code base the PR is modifying. +We don't quite measure bandwidth, but one way of doing that is by looking at pending PRs broken +by assignment. + +**Is there a healthy onboarding and growth path for contributors in your SIG? What are some +activities that the group does to encourage this? What programs are you participating in to +grow contributors throughout the contributor ladder?** + +There is no official onboarding process. One thing we try to do frequently is breaking up +larger features into smaller enough tasks for new members to contribute. + +**What programs do you participate in for new contributors?** + +Currently we don't. + +**Does the group have contributors from multiple companies/affiliations? Can end users/companies +contribute in some way that they currently are not?** + +Yes. + +## Current initiatives and project health + +**What are initiatives that should be highlighted, lauded, shout out, that your group is proud of? + Currently underway? What are some of the longer tail projects that your group is working on?** + +- Initiatives: + - Focusing on turning the scheduler into a pluggable framework to allow developing new custom + features outside the main repo. + [k-sigs/scheduler-plugins] initiated this to build a scheduler plugin ecosystem. It has a wide + participation from different companies, by either direct contributions from Alibaba, Tencent, + Apple, etc., as well as adoption by companies like [OpenAI]. + - Improving scheduler performance. We're working on some items like optimizing internal queues, + tailored preemption logic, as well as exposing meaningful metrics to help define SLA/SLOs. +- Longer tail projects: + - Continuing to refactor the core code around the scheduling framework. + - Graduating the scheduler's ComponentConfig to GA. + +**Year to date KEP work review: What's now stable? Beta? Alpha? Road to alpha?** + +- Alpha + - [Prefer Nominated Node] + - [Node Resource Strategy] + - [Pod Affinity Namespace Selector] + - [Volume Capacity Priority] (co-owned by sig-storage) +- Beta + - [Default topology spread] (will graduate with CC) + - [Multi Scheduling Profiles] + - [Non-preempting priority class] + - [Component Config] + +**What areas and/or subprojects does the group need the most help with?** + +- **Docs improvement**: + - developer oriented docs to understand more details of scheduler internals, so that they can come + up with k8s-scheduler-native extensions to fit their business needs + - user or cluster-admin oriented docs to make the most of scheduler, like best practices and tips + that are not documented well +- **Standardize issue triage process**: + +**What's the average open days of a PR and Issue in your group? What metrics does your group care about and/or measure?** + +We haven't started leveraging devstat data or Github board to get a high-level picture of PR/Issue. + +[sig-governance.md]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/committee-steering/governance/sig-governance.md +[contributors/devel/sig-scheduling]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/contributors/devel/sig-scheduling +[sigs.yaml]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/sig-list.md +[k-sigs/scheduler-plugins]: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/scheduler-plugins + +[Prefer Nominated Node]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-scheduling/1923-prefer-nominated-node +[Node Resource Strategy]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-scheduling/2458-node-resource-score-strategy +[Pod Affinity Namespace Selector]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-scheduling/2249-pod-affinity-namespace-selector +[Volume Capacity Priority]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-storage/1845-prioritization-on-volume-capacity +[Default topology spread]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-scheduling/1258-default-pod-topology-spread +[Multi Scheduling Profiles]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-scheduling/1451-multi-scheduling-profiles +[Non-preempting priority class]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-scheduling/902-non-preempting-priorityclass +[Component Config]: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/tree/master/keps/sig-scheduling/785-scheduler-component-config-api + +[OpenAI]: https://openai.com/blog/scaling-kubernetes-to-7500-nodes/#gangscheduling diff --git a/sig-windows/annual-report-2020.md b/sig-windows/annual-report-2020.md deleted file mode 100644 index 6670700a..00000000 --- a/sig-windows/annual-report-2020.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,69 +0,0 @@ -# Operational -How are you doing with operational tasks in sig-governance.md? Good, we go over things as leads when needed and update stuff, and are growing the community to help with this. - -Is your README accurate?have a CONTRIBUTING.md file? -Yes / Yes - README.md is up to date, CONTRIBUTING.md is still accurate but could use some updates. - -All subprojects correctly mapped and listed in sigs.yaml? -Yes - -What’s your meeting culture? Large/small, active/quiet, learnings? Meeting notes up to date? Are you keeping recordings up to date/trends in community members watching recordings? -Meetings have decent attendance, but few active participants (i.e. not lots of questions or free discussion... we want more of that). -Meeting notes are used during the meetings are up to date. -Recordings are up to date but few views - -How does the group get updates, reports, or feedback from subprojects? Are there any springing up or being retired? Are OWNERS files up to date in these areas? -Owners files are up to date. Existing subprojects are mostly in maintenance mode. We would like to try starting one or two subprojects to gather more interest / new participation in SIG-Windows. -Same question as above but for working groups. -We don't get updates from subprojects and are in the project of refactoring subprojects to match where active development is happening. - -When was your last monthly community-wide update? (provide link to deck and/or recording) -Sept 17, 2020. The recording is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wn_dIEg0E8, slides are here https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1FkS6FIes9opMR1B4qXyVzwGfUBnX0A-sh27Kcnyi-e4/edit#slide=id.g97ab5232db_0_0 . - -# Membership - -Are all listed SIG leaders (chairs, tech leads, and subproject owners) active? -Yes - -How do you measure membership? By mailing list members, OWNERs, or something else? -We don’t measure membership. - -How does the group measure reviewer and approver bandwidth? Do you need help in any area now? What are you doing about it? -We are blocked on reviewer/approver bandwidth from other SIGs much more often than reviewer/approver bandwidth in our SIG. -Is there a healthy onboarding and growth path for contributors in your SIG? What are some activities that the group does to encourage this? What programs are you participating in to grow contributors throughout the contributor ladder? -We want to focus on this in the next few months. Some ideas we have are pairing with folks and establishing one or two new focused subprojects that will encourage new participants. - -What programs do you participate in for new contributors? We’re wanting to groom long-term/dedicated contributors to maintain testing, windows development environments, and add privileged container ecosystem tooling. - -Are there programs to help with this? Does the group have contributors from multiple companies/affiliations? Can end users/companies contribute in some way that they currently are not? Yes, we have contributors from many companies. Current initiatives and project health - -# Accomplishments - -What are initiatives that should be highlighted, lauded, shout out, that your group is proud of? Currently underway? What are some of the longer tail projects that your group is working on? - -- Containerd support (proud of) -- Network policy support (currently underway) -- Cluster API support (proud of) -- Privileged containers (long tail) - -Year to date KEP work review: What’s now stable? Beta? Alpha? Road to alpha? - -- Alpha / going alpha -- Privileged containers -- Node log viewer -- Beta / going beta -- DSR support -- Stable / going stable -- CSI proxy - -What areas and/or subprojects does the group need the most help with? - -- API Reviews, sig-auth -- E2e tests / coverage / keeping things green -- Testgrid -- Cross-SIG collaboration (auth, api reviews) - -What's the average open days of a PR and Issue in your group? / what metrics does your group care about and/or measure? -Average open days for PR is long weeks or months - mainly due to requiring reviews/approvals from multiple SIGs most of the time. - - diff --git a/sig-windows/annual-report-2021.md b/sig-windows/annual-report-2021.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..6670700a --- /dev/null +++ b/sig-windows/annual-report-2021.md @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +# Operational +How are you doing with operational tasks in sig-governance.md? Good, we go over things as leads when needed and update stuff, and are growing the community to help with this. + +Is your README accurate?have a CONTRIBUTING.md file? +Yes / Yes - README.md is up to date, CONTRIBUTING.md is still accurate but could use some updates. + +All subprojects correctly mapped and listed in sigs.yaml? +Yes + +What’s your meeting culture? Large/small, active/quiet, learnings? Meeting notes up to date? Are you keeping recordings up to date/trends in community members watching recordings? +Meetings have decent attendance, but few active participants (i.e. not lots of questions or free discussion... we want more of that). +Meeting notes are used during the meetings are up to date. +Recordings are up to date but few views + +How does the group get updates, reports, or feedback from subprojects? Are there any springing up or being retired? Are OWNERS files up to date in these areas? +Owners files are up to date. Existing subprojects are mostly in maintenance mode. We would like to try starting one or two subprojects to gather more interest / new participation in SIG-Windows. +Same question as above but for working groups. +We don't get updates from subprojects and are in the project of refactoring subprojects to match where active development is happening. + +When was your last monthly community-wide update? (provide link to deck and/or recording) +Sept 17, 2020. The recording is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wn_dIEg0E8, slides are here https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1FkS6FIes9opMR1B4qXyVzwGfUBnX0A-sh27Kcnyi-e4/edit#slide=id.g97ab5232db_0_0 . + +# Membership + +Are all listed SIG leaders (chairs, tech leads, and subproject owners) active? +Yes + +How do you measure membership? By mailing list members, OWNERs, or something else? +We don’t measure membership. + +How does the group measure reviewer and approver bandwidth? Do you need help in any area now? What are you doing about it? +We are blocked on reviewer/approver bandwidth from other SIGs much more often than reviewer/approver bandwidth in our SIG. +Is there a healthy onboarding and growth path for contributors in your SIG? What are some activities that the group does to encourage this? What programs are you participating in to grow contributors throughout the contributor ladder? +We want to focus on this in the next few months. Some ideas we have are pairing with folks and establishing one or two new focused subprojects that will encourage new participants. + +What programs do you participate in for new contributors? We’re wanting to groom long-term/dedicated contributors to maintain testing, windows development environments, and add privileged container ecosystem tooling. + +Are there programs to help with this? Does the group have contributors from multiple companies/affiliations? Can end users/companies contribute in some way that they currently are not? Yes, we have contributors from many companies. Current initiatives and project health + +# Accomplishments + +What are initiatives that should be highlighted, lauded, shout out, that your group is proud of? Currently underway? What are some of the longer tail projects that your group is working on? + +- Containerd support (proud of) +- Network policy support (currently underway) +- Cluster API support (proud of) +- Privileged containers (long tail) + +Year to date KEP work review: What’s now stable? Beta? Alpha? Road to alpha? + +- Alpha / going alpha +- Privileged containers +- Node log viewer +- Beta / going beta +- DSR support +- Stable / going stable +- CSI proxy + +What areas and/or subprojects does the group need the most help with? + +- API Reviews, sig-auth +- E2e tests / coverage / keeping things green +- Testgrid +- Cross-SIG collaboration (auth, api reviews) + +What's the average open days of a PR and Issue in your group? / what metrics does your group care about and/or measure? +Average open days for PR is long weeks or months - mainly due to requiring reviews/approvals from multiple SIGs most of the time. + + diff --git a/wg-api-expression/2020-annual-report.md b/wg-api-expression/2020-annual-report.md deleted file mode 100644 index 946af949..00000000 --- a/wg-api-expression/2020-annual-report.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,38 +0,0 @@ -# 2020 - WG API Expression - Community Meeting Annual Reports - -**What was the initial mission of the group and if it's changed, how?** - -Should still be the same as outlined in our [mission statement](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/wg-api-expression/README.md), but with a hard focus on Server Side Apply. - -**What’s the current roadmap until completion?** - -- Server Side Apply (GA targeted for v1.21). - - Currently the WorkGroup is mostly focused on delivering Server Side Apply. - -- Our Mission Statement contains various other topics we would like to work on, but finishing and delivering -a working version of SSA is our primary goal right now. - -**Have you produced any artifacts, reports, white papers to date?** - -- SSA went to Beta 2 with K8s v1.18 - - This enabled the tracking of managedFields by default on every new resource. -[There was a Blog Post about it](https://kubernetes.io/blog/2020/04/01/kubernetes-1.18-feature-server-side-apply-beta-2/). - -**Is the group active? healthy? contributors from multiple companies and/or end user companies?** - -- The group meets actively every two weeks with communication on GitHub and Slack in between. -- Contributors are from various companies, including Google, IBM, Red Hat and end user companies. - -**Is everything in your readme accurate? posting meetings on youtube?** - -- The readme should be accurate. -- We’re uploading videos to youtube. - -**Do you have regular check-ins with your sponsoring SIGs?** - -I wouldn’t say regular check-ins, but people from those SIGs are present at most meetings. -If we should have a more formal check-in, we can figure something out. - - diff --git a/wg-api-expression/annual-report-2020.md b/wg-api-expression/annual-report-2020.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..946af949 --- /dev/null +++ b/wg-api-expression/annual-report-2020.md @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +# 2020 - WG API Expression - Community Meeting Annual Reports + +**What was the initial mission of the group and if it's changed, how?** + +Should still be the same as outlined in our [mission statement](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/wg-api-expression/README.md), but with a hard focus on Server Side Apply. + +**What’s the current roadmap until completion?** + +- Server Side Apply (GA targeted for v1.21). + + Currently the WorkGroup is mostly focused on delivering Server Side Apply. + +- Our Mission Statement contains various other topics we would like to work on, but finishing and delivering +a working version of SSA is our primary goal right now. + +**Have you produced any artifacts, reports, white papers to date?** + +- SSA went to Beta 2 with K8s v1.18 + + This enabled the tracking of managedFields by default on every new resource. +[There was a Blog Post about it](https://kubernetes.io/blog/2020/04/01/kubernetes-1.18-feature-server-side-apply-beta-2/). + +**Is the group active? healthy? contributors from multiple companies and/or end user companies?** + +- The group meets actively every two weeks with communication on GitHub and Slack in between. +- Contributors are from various companies, including Google, IBM, Red Hat and end user companies. + +**Is everything in your readme accurate? posting meetings on youtube?** + +- The readme should be accurate. +- We’re uploading videos to youtube. + +**Do you have regular check-ins with your sponsoring SIGs?** + +I wouldn’t say regular check-ins, but people from those SIGs are present at most meetings. +If we should have a more formal check-in, we can figure something out. + + diff --git a/wg-k8s-infra/2020-annual-report.md b/wg-k8s-infra/2020-annual-report.md deleted file mode 100644 index 95734b3e..00000000 --- a/wg-k8s-infra/2020-annual-report.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,199 +0,0 @@ -# 2020 WG K8s Infra Annual Report - -## You and Your Role - -**When did you become a chair and do you enjoy the role?** - -- **bartsmykla**: February 2020 and I enjoy the role -- **dims**: along with spiffxp, been there right from the beginning. Lately - having some conflicts on the meeting time, but definitely enjoying the process -- **spiffxp**: Was a chair (organizer?) at group’s formation. I enjoy the role - when I have time to dedicate to it. - -**What do you find challenging?** - -- **bartsmykla**: As our working group’s efforts are related to multiple SIGs, - and there is multiple places, tools, repositories which are needed to move - some things forward I sometimes feel overwhelmed and anxiety about not - understanding some of the tools (Prow for example), what is also hard is I - don’t feel I have enough access and knowledge to speed up and move things - fasters in relation to Prow migration. -- **dims**: takes too long :) finding/building coalition is hard. Trying hard to - avoid doing everything by a small set of folks, but not doing too good on that - front. -- **spiffxp**: Prioritizing this group’s work, and the work necessary to tend to - this group’s garden (by that I mean weeding/planting workstreams, - building/smoothing onramps). Work that usually takes precedence is related to - company-internal priorities, SIG Testing and kubernetes/kubernetes fires. I - often find myself unprepared for meetings unless I have been actively pushing - a specific item in the interim. Very rarely am I sufficiently aware of the - group’s activity as a whole to effectively drive. - -**Do you have goals for the group?** - -- **bartsmykla**: My goal would be to improve documentation for people to be - easier to understand what and where is happening and which tools and resources - are being used for which efforts -- **dims**: breaking things up into small chunks that can be easily farmed out -- **spiffxp**: The thing I care most about is community ownership of - prow.k8s.io, including on-call. If possible, I would like to see the group’s - mission through to completion, ensuring that all project infrastructure is - community-owned and maintained. - -**Do you want to continue or find a replacement? If you feel that you aren’t -ready to pass the baton, what would you like to accomplish before you do?** - -- **bartsmykla**: I would like to continue -- **dims**: Happy to if folks show up who can take over. Always on the look out. -- **spiffxp**: I personally want to continue, but sometimes wonder if my - best-effort availability is doing the group a disservice. If there’s a - replacement and I’m the impediment, I’m happy to step down. The ideal - replacement or a dedicated TL would have: - - ability to craft and build consensus on operational policies, lead implementation - - ability to identify cost hotspots, lead or implement cost-reduction solutions - - ability to identify security vulnerabilities or operational sharp edges - (e.g. no backups, easy accidents), lead or implement mitigations - - familiarity with GCP and Kubernetes - - ability to document/understand how existing project infra is wired together - (e.g. could fix https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/13063 ) - -**Is there something we can provide that would better support you?** - -- **bartsmykla**: I can’t think about anything right now -- **dims**: what spiffxp said! -- **spiffxp**: TBH I feel like a lot of what we need to make this group as - active/healthy as I would like needs to come from us. For example I don’t - think a dedicated PM would help without a dedicated TL. I’m not sure how to - more effectively motivate our contributing companies to prioritize this work. - I have pined in the past for dedicated contractors paid by the CNCF for this, - but I think that could just as easily be fulfilled by contributing companies - agreeing to staff this. - -**Do you have feedback for Steering? Suggestions for what we should work on?** - -- **bartsmykla**: I can’t think about anything right now -- **dims**: yep, talking to CNCF proactively and formulating a plan. -- **spiffxp**: I think there are three things Steering could help with: - - Policy guidance from Steering on what is in-scope / out-of-scope for - Kubernetes’ project-infrastructure budget (e.g. mirroring - dependency/ecosystem projects like cert-manager [1], ci jobs). It might - better drive billing requirements, and make it easier/quicker to decide what - is appropriate to pursue. At the moment we’re using our best judgement, and - I trust it, but I sometimes feel like we’re flying blind or making stuff up. - As far as existing spend and budgeting, we don’t have - quotas/forecasts/alerts; we’re mostly hoping everyone is on their best - behavior until something seems outsized, at which point it’s case-by-case on - what to do. - - I think it would be helpful to get spend on platforms other than Google - above-the-table, and driven through this group. I know how much money Google - has provided, and I know where it’s being spent (though not to the - granularity of per-SIG). I lack the equivalent for other companies “helping - out” (e.g. AWS, Microsoft, DigitalOcean) - - This is not a concrete request that can be acted upon now, but I anticipate - we will want to reduce costs by ensuring that other clouds or large entities - participate in mirroring Kubernetes artifacts. - -## Working Group - -**What was the initial mission of the group and if it's changed, how?** - -Initial mission was to migrate Kubernetes project infrastructure to the CNCF, -creation of teams and processes to support ongoing maintenance. - -There has been a slight growth in scope in that new infrastructure that -previously didn't exist is proposed and managed under this group. Examples -include: -- binary-artifact-promotion (project only had image-promotion internally, now - externally, now attempting to expand to binary artifacts) -- [running triage-party for SIG Release](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/906) - (didn't exist until this year) -- [build infrastructure for windows-based images](https://docs.google.com/document/d/16VBfsFMynA7tObzuZGPpw-sKDKfFc_T5W_E4IeEIaOQ/edit#bookmark=id.3w0g7fo9cp7m) -- [image vulnerability dashboard](https://docs.google.com/document/d/16VBfsFMynA7tObzuZGPpw-sKDKfFc_T5W_E4IeEIaOQ/edit#bookmark=id.s3by3vki8jer) - (it's not clear to me whether even google had this internally before) -- [sharding out / scaling up gitops-based Google Group management](https://docs.google.com/document/d/16VBfsFMynA7tObzuZGPpw-sKDKfFc_T5W_E4IeEIaOQ/edit#bookmark=id.ou5hk544r70m) - -**What’s the current roadmap until completion?** - -What has been migrated: -- DNS for kubernetes.io, k8s.io -- Container images hosted on k8s.gcr.io -- node-perf-dash.k8s.io -- perf-dash.k8s.io -- publishing-bot -- slack-infra -- 288 / 1780 prow jobs -- GCB projects used to create kubernetes/kubernetes releases - (exception .deb/.rpm packages) - -What remains (TODO: we need to update our issues to reflect this) -- migrate .deb/.rpm package building/hosting to community - (this would be owned by SIG Release) - - stop using google-internal tool "rapture" - - come up with signing keys community agrees to host/trust - - migrate apt.kubernetes.io to community -- stop using google-containers GCP project (this would be owned by SIG Release) - - gs://kubernetes-release, dl.k8s.io - - [gs://kubernetes-release-dev](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/846) -- stop using k8s-prow GCP project (this would be owned by SIG Testing) - - Prow.k8s.io - - Ensure community-staffed on-call can support -- stop using k8s-prow-build GCP project (this would be owned by SIG Testing) - - 288/1780 jobs migrated out thus far - - Ensure community-staffed on-call can support -- [stop using k8s-gubernator GCP project](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/1308) - (this would be owned by SIG Testing) - - migrate/replace gubernator.k8s.io/pr (triage-party?), drop gubernator.k8s.io - - [migrate kette](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/787) - - [migrate k8s-gubernator:builds dataset](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/1307) - - [migrate triage.k8s.io](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/1305) - - [migrate gs://k8s-metrics](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/1306) -- stop using kubernetes-jenkins GCP project (this would be owned by SIG Testing) - - gs://kubernetes-jenkins (all CI artifacts/logs for prow.k8s.io jobs) - - sundry other GCS buckets (gs://k8s-kops-gce, gs://kubernetes-staging*) -- [stop using k8s-federated-conformance GCP project](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/1311) - (this would be owned by SIG Testing) - - Migrate to CNCF-owned k8s-conform (rename/copy sundry GCS buckets, distribute new service account keys) -- [stop using k8s-testimages GCP project](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/1312) - (this could be owned either by SIG Testing or SIG Release) - - Migrate images used by CI jobs (kubekins, bazel-krte, gcloud, etc.) - - Migrate test-infra components (kettle, greenhouse, etc.) - - (This may push us toward [limited/lifecycle-based retention of images, which - GCR does not natively have](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/525)?) -- stop using kubernetes-site GCP project (unsure, maybe SIG ContribEx or SIG Docs depending) - - ??? -- Ensure SIG ownership of all infra and services - - Must be supportable by non-google community members - - Ensure critical contributor user journeys are well documented for each service - -**Have you produced any artifacts, reports, white papers to date?** - -We provide a [publicly viewable billing report](https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/14UWSuqD5ef9E4LnsCD9uJWTPv8MHOA3e) -accessible to members of kubernetes-wg-k8s-infra@googlegroups.com. -The project was given $3M/yr for 3 years, and our third year started ~August 2020. -Our spend over the past 28 days has been ~$109K, which works out to ~$1.42M/yr. -A very rough breakdown of the $109k: -- $74k - k8s-artifacts-prod* (~ k8s.gcr.io) -- $34k - k8s-infra-prow*, k8s-infra-e2e*, k8s-staging* (~ project CI thus far, follows kubernetes/kubernetes traffic) -- $0.7k - kubernetes-public (~ everything else) - -**Is everything in your readme accurate? posting meetings on youtube?** - -Our community -[readme](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/wg-k8s-infra) is -accurate if sparse. The -[readme](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/blob/master/README.md) in k8s.io, -which houses most of the actual infrastructure, is terse and slightly out of -date (missing triage party) - -[We are having problems with our zoom automation](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/5199), -causing [our youtube playlist](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL69nYSiGNLP2Ghq7VW8rFbMFoHwvORuDL) -to fall out of date; I noticed while writing this report and have gotten help -backfilling. We're currently missing 2020-10-14. - -**Do you have regular check-ins with your sponsoring SIGs?** - -No formal reporting in either direction. Meetings/slack/issues see active -participation from @spiffxp (SIG Testing chair), and occasional participation -from @justaugustus (SIG Release) and @nikhita (SIG Contributor Experience). We -also see participation on slack/issues/PRs from @dims (SIG Architecture) who has -a schedule conflict. diff --git a/wg-k8s-infra/annual-report-2020.md b/wg-k8s-infra/annual-report-2020.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..95734b3e --- /dev/null +++ b/wg-k8s-infra/annual-report-2020.md @@ -0,0 +1,199 @@ +# 2020 WG K8s Infra Annual Report + +## You and Your Role + +**When did you become a chair and do you enjoy the role?** + +- **bartsmykla**: February 2020 and I enjoy the role +- **dims**: along with spiffxp, been there right from the beginning. Lately + having some conflicts on the meeting time, but definitely enjoying the process +- **spiffxp**: Was a chair (organizer?) at group’s formation. I enjoy the role + when I have time to dedicate to it. + +**What do you find challenging?** + +- **bartsmykla**: As our working group’s efforts are related to multiple SIGs, + and there is multiple places, tools, repositories which are needed to move + some things forward I sometimes feel overwhelmed and anxiety about not + understanding some of the tools (Prow for example), what is also hard is I + don’t feel I have enough access and knowledge to speed up and move things + fasters in relation to Prow migration. +- **dims**: takes too long :) finding/building coalition is hard. Trying hard to + avoid doing everything by a small set of folks, but not doing too good on that + front. +- **spiffxp**: Prioritizing this group’s work, and the work necessary to tend to + this group’s garden (by that I mean weeding/planting workstreams, + building/smoothing onramps). Work that usually takes precedence is related to + company-internal priorities, SIG Testing and kubernetes/kubernetes fires. I + often find myself unprepared for meetings unless I have been actively pushing + a specific item in the interim. Very rarely am I sufficiently aware of the + group’s activity as a whole to effectively drive. + +**Do you have goals for the group?** + +- **bartsmykla**: My goal would be to improve documentation for people to be + easier to understand what and where is happening and which tools and resources + are being used for which efforts +- **dims**: breaking things up into small chunks that can be easily farmed out +- **spiffxp**: The thing I care most about is community ownership of + prow.k8s.io, including on-call. If possible, I would like to see the group’s + mission through to completion, ensuring that all project infrastructure is + community-owned and maintained. + +**Do you want to continue or find a replacement? If you feel that you aren’t +ready to pass the baton, what would you like to accomplish before you do?** + +- **bartsmykla**: I would like to continue +- **dims**: Happy to if folks show up who can take over. Always on the look out. +- **spiffxp**: I personally want to continue, but sometimes wonder if my + best-effort availability is doing the group a disservice. If there’s a + replacement and I’m the impediment, I’m happy to step down. The ideal + replacement or a dedicated TL would have: + - ability to craft and build consensus on operational policies, lead implementation + - ability to identify cost hotspots, lead or implement cost-reduction solutions + - ability to identify security vulnerabilities or operational sharp edges + (e.g. no backups, easy accidents), lead or implement mitigations + - familiarity with GCP and Kubernetes + - ability to document/understand how existing project infra is wired together + (e.g. could fix https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/13063 ) + +**Is there something we can provide that would better support you?** + +- **bartsmykla**: I can’t think about anything right now +- **dims**: what spiffxp said! +- **spiffxp**: TBH I feel like a lot of what we need to make this group as + active/healthy as I would like needs to come from us. For example I don’t + think a dedicated PM would help without a dedicated TL. I’m not sure how to + more effectively motivate our contributing companies to prioritize this work. + I have pined in the past for dedicated contractors paid by the CNCF for this, + but I think that could just as easily be fulfilled by contributing companies + agreeing to staff this. + +**Do you have feedback for Steering? Suggestions for what we should work on?** + +- **bartsmykla**: I can’t think about anything right now +- **dims**: yep, talking to CNCF proactively and formulating a plan. +- **spiffxp**: I think there are three things Steering could help with: + - Policy guidance from Steering on what is in-scope / out-of-scope for + Kubernetes’ project-infrastructure budget (e.g. mirroring + dependency/ecosystem projects like cert-manager [1], ci jobs). It might + better drive billing requirements, and make it easier/quicker to decide what + is appropriate to pursue. At the moment we’re using our best judgement, and + I trust it, but I sometimes feel like we’re flying blind or making stuff up. + As far as existing spend and budgeting, we don’t have + quotas/forecasts/alerts; we’re mostly hoping everyone is on their best + behavior until something seems outsized, at which point it’s case-by-case on + what to do. + - I think it would be helpful to get spend on platforms other than Google + above-the-table, and driven through this group. I know how much money Google + has provided, and I know where it’s being spent (though not to the + granularity of per-SIG). I lack the equivalent for other companies “helping + out” (e.g. AWS, Microsoft, DigitalOcean) + - This is not a concrete request that can be acted upon now, but I anticipate + we will want to reduce costs by ensuring that other clouds or large entities + participate in mirroring Kubernetes artifacts. + +## Working Group + +**What was the initial mission of the group and if it's changed, how?** + +Initial mission was to migrate Kubernetes project infrastructure to the CNCF, +creation of teams and processes to support ongoing maintenance. + +There has been a slight growth in scope in that new infrastructure that +previously didn't exist is proposed and managed under this group. Examples +include: +- binary-artifact-promotion (project only had image-promotion internally, now + externally, now attempting to expand to binary artifacts) +- [running triage-party for SIG Release](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/906) + (didn't exist until this year) +- [build infrastructure for windows-based images](https://docs.google.com/document/d/16VBfsFMynA7tObzuZGPpw-sKDKfFc_T5W_E4IeEIaOQ/edit#bookmark=id.3w0g7fo9cp7m) +- [image vulnerability dashboard](https://docs.google.com/document/d/16VBfsFMynA7tObzuZGPpw-sKDKfFc_T5W_E4IeEIaOQ/edit#bookmark=id.s3by3vki8jer) + (it's not clear to me whether even google had this internally before) +- [sharding out / scaling up gitops-based Google Group management](https://docs.google.com/document/d/16VBfsFMynA7tObzuZGPpw-sKDKfFc_T5W_E4IeEIaOQ/edit#bookmark=id.ou5hk544r70m) + +**What’s the current roadmap until completion?** + +What has been migrated: +- DNS for kubernetes.io, k8s.io +- Container images hosted on k8s.gcr.io +- node-perf-dash.k8s.io +- perf-dash.k8s.io +- publishing-bot +- slack-infra +- 288 / 1780 prow jobs +- GCB projects used to create kubernetes/kubernetes releases + (exception .deb/.rpm packages) + +What remains (TODO: we need to update our issues to reflect this) +- migrate .deb/.rpm package building/hosting to community + (this would be owned by SIG Release) + - stop using google-internal tool "rapture" + - come up with signing keys community agrees to host/trust + - migrate apt.kubernetes.io to community +- stop using google-containers GCP project (this would be owned by SIG Release) + - gs://kubernetes-release, dl.k8s.io + - [gs://kubernetes-release-dev](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/846) +- stop using k8s-prow GCP project (this would be owned by SIG Testing) + - Prow.k8s.io + - Ensure community-staffed on-call can support +- stop using k8s-prow-build GCP project (this would be owned by SIG Testing) + - 288/1780 jobs migrated out thus far + - Ensure community-staffed on-call can support +- [stop using k8s-gubernator GCP project](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/1308) + (this would be owned by SIG Testing) + - migrate/replace gubernator.k8s.io/pr (triage-party?), drop gubernator.k8s.io + - [migrate kette](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/787) + - [migrate k8s-gubernator:builds dataset](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/1307) + - [migrate triage.k8s.io](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/1305) + - [migrate gs://k8s-metrics](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/1306) +- stop using kubernetes-jenkins GCP project (this would be owned by SIG Testing) + - gs://kubernetes-jenkins (all CI artifacts/logs for prow.k8s.io jobs) + - sundry other GCS buckets (gs://k8s-kops-gce, gs://kubernetes-staging*) +- [stop using k8s-federated-conformance GCP project](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/1311) + (this would be owned by SIG Testing) + - Migrate to CNCF-owned k8s-conform (rename/copy sundry GCS buckets, distribute new service account keys) +- [stop using k8s-testimages GCP project](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/1312) + (this could be owned either by SIG Testing or SIG Release) + - Migrate images used by CI jobs (kubekins, bazel-krte, gcloud, etc.) + - Migrate test-infra components (kettle, greenhouse, etc.) + - (This may push us toward [limited/lifecycle-based retention of images, which + GCR does not natively have](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/issues/525)?) +- stop using kubernetes-site GCP project (unsure, maybe SIG ContribEx or SIG Docs depending) + - ??? +- Ensure SIG ownership of all infra and services + - Must be supportable by non-google community members + - Ensure critical contributor user journeys are well documented for each service + +**Have you produced any artifacts, reports, white papers to date?** + +We provide a [publicly viewable billing report](https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/14UWSuqD5ef9E4LnsCD9uJWTPv8MHOA3e) +accessible to members of kubernetes-wg-k8s-infra@googlegroups.com. +The project was given $3M/yr for 3 years, and our third year started ~August 2020. +Our spend over the past 28 days has been ~$109K, which works out to ~$1.42M/yr. +A very rough breakdown of the $109k: +- $74k - k8s-artifacts-prod* (~ k8s.gcr.io) +- $34k - k8s-infra-prow*, k8s-infra-e2e*, k8s-staging* (~ project CI thus far, follows kubernetes/kubernetes traffic) +- $0.7k - kubernetes-public (~ everything else) + +**Is everything in your readme accurate? posting meetings on youtube?** + +Our community +[readme](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/tree/master/wg-k8s-infra) is +accurate if sparse. The +[readme](https://github.com/kubernetes/k8s.io/blob/master/README.md) in k8s.io, +which houses most of the actual infrastructure, is terse and slightly out of +date (missing triage party) + +[We are having problems with our zoom automation](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/issues/5199), +causing [our youtube playlist](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL69nYSiGNLP2Ghq7VW8rFbMFoHwvORuDL) +to fall out of date; I noticed while writing this report and have gotten help +backfilling. We're currently missing 2020-10-14. + +**Do you have regular check-ins with your sponsoring SIGs?** + +No formal reporting in either direction. Meetings/slack/issues see active +participation from @spiffxp (SIG Testing chair), and occasional participation +from @justaugustus (SIG Release) and @nikhita (SIG Contributor Experience). We +also see participation on slack/issues/PRs from @dims (SIG Architecture) who has +a schedule conflict. diff --git a/wg-multitenancy/2021-annual-report.md b/wg-multitenancy/2021-annual-report.md deleted file mode 100644 index fb6a82c1..00000000 --- a/wg-multitenancy/2021-annual-report.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,53 +0,0 @@ -# 2021 WG Multitenancy Annual Report - -### What was the initial mission of the group and if it's changed, how? - -**Initial Mission:** - -Define the models of multitenancy that Kubernetes will support. Discuss and execute upon any -remaining work that needs to be done to support these models. Create conformance tests that -will prove that these models can be built and used in production environments. - -**Current Mission:** - -We are focusing more on projects using Kubernetes than trying to directly change the API machinery, -which is a huge and potentially intractable problem. We are continuing to work on conformance -testing as part of one of our projects. - -### What’s the current roadmap until completion? - -**We have three projects we are incubating:** - -* Multi-Tenancy Benchmarks https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/multi-tenancy/tree/master/benchmarks -* Virtual Cluster Project https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/multi-tenancy/tree/master/incubator/virtualcluster -* Hierarchical Namespace Controller https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/multi-tenancy/tree/master/incubator/hnc - -These are all in active development, and we’re making good progress. Google Cloud has adopted HNC in beta. -MTB is going to be a great platform for the conformance test suite expansion. Virtual Cluster Project is -graduating out of our incubator and into its own repo! HNC will probably follow soon. - -The roadmap is documented in the [working group project plan](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U8RQQmTUjxgMZY05HG2f7b3KsB94BhK4Ko6aWbLNXcc/edit). - -### Have you produced any artifacts, reports, white papers to date? - -You can find a bunch of our docs here: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/multi-tenancy/tree/master/docs - -### Is the group active? healthy? contributors from multiple companies and/or end user companies? - -Yes, it’s one of the most egalitarian working groups I’ve seen. We have active contributors and participants -from all over the industry, and a lot of drive bys from consumers of Kubernetes who are just trying to -configure clusters for multi-tenancy and have questions. Our incubating projects are led by people from -Google, Nirmata, Alibaba, and Medtronic, have reviewers and participants from other companies, and the WG chairs work at VMware and Cisco. -We have a very diverse group of presenters from different companies who are all trying to solve the same problems, and we all have -the philosophy of learning from each other and sharing. - -### Is everything in your readme accurate? posting meetings on youtube? - -Yes and Yes. - -### Do you have regular check-ins with your sponsoring SIGs? - -We have a huge number of sponsoring SIGs, many of them send representatives to meetings on an adhoc basis. - -### Links to the last two community meeting updates the group has given and notable highlights you’d like to share from those. - diff --git a/wg-multitenancy/annual-report-2021.md b/wg-multitenancy/annual-report-2021.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..fb6a82c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/wg-multitenancy/annual-report-2021.md @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +# 2021 WG Multitenancy Annual Report + +### What was the initial mission of the group and if it's changed, how? + +**Initial Mission:** + +Define the models of multitenancy that Kubernetes will support. Discuss and execute upon any +remaining work that needs to be done to support these models. Create conformance tests that +will prove that these models can be built and used in production environments. + +**Current Mission:** + +We are focusing more on projects using Kubernetes than trying to directly change the API machinery, +which is a huge and potentially intractable problem. We are continuing to work on conformance +testing as part of one of our projects. + +### What’s the current roadmap until completion? + +**We have three projects we are incubating:** + +* Multi-Tenancy Benchmarks https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/multi-tenancy/tree/master/benchmarks +* Virtual Cluster Project https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/multi-tenancy/tree/master/incubator/virtualcluster +* Hierarchical Namespace Controller https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/multi-tenancy/tree/master/incubator/hnc + +These are all in active development, and we’re making good progress. Google Cloud has adopted HNC in beta. +MTB is going to be a great platform for the conformance test suite expansion. Virtual Cluster Project is +graduating out of our incubator and into its own repo! HNC will probably follow soon. + +The roadmap is documented in the [working group project plan](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U8RQQmTUjxgMZY05HG2f7b3KsB94BhK4Ko6aWbLNXcc/edit). + +### Have you produced any artifacts, reports, white papers to date? + +You can find a bunch of our docs here: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/multi-tenancy/tree/master/docs + +### Is the group active? healthy? contributors from multiple companies and/or end user companies? + +Yes, it’s one of the most egalitarian working groups I’ve seen. We have active contributors and participants +from all over the industry, and a lot of drive bys from consumers of Kubernetes who are just trying to +configure clusters for multi-tenancy and have questions. Our incubating projects are led by people from +Google, Nirmata, Alibaba, and Medtronic, have reviewers and participants from other companies, and the WG chairs work at VMware and Cisco. +We have a very diverse group of presenters from different companies who are all trying to solve the same problems, and we all have +the philosophy of learning from each other and sharing. + +### Is everything in your readme accurate? posting meetings on youtube? + +Yes and Yes. + +### Do you have regular check-ins with your sponsoring SIGs? + +We have a huge number of sponsoring SIGs, many of them send representatives to meetings on an adhoc basis. + +### Links to the last two community meeting updates the group has given and notable highlights you’d like to share from those. + -- cgit v1.2.3