We discussed OpenKruise in Kubernetes SIG Apps. I can now answer questions asked of SIG Apps. In the meeting what OpenKruise is building was discussed along with how things could operate between SIG Apps as a sandbox project or K8s SIG sponsored project.
We're happy to see these experiments and want to support them, but we wondered if it makes more sense for them to belong within the purview of the Kubernetes project rather than as a standalone project?
Experiments happen all over. For example, OpenShift's work lead to what we now have as the Workloads APIs. We don't believe they need or should be part of the Kubernetes project. It is perfectly fine for them to be either k8s SIG sponsored projects, CNCF projects, or some other project.
In this case OpenKruise desires to operate as a sandbox project and SIG Apps is supportive of that. We have a path to collaborate as needed.
My understanding is that OpenKruise intends to eventually contribute successful experiments to upstream Kubernetes anyway.
This is more difficult. Upstream Kubernetes won't likely accept every new type of controller. The direction is generally to have them installed as 3rd party controllers. The bar to move something into core Kubernetes is now very high.
Some successful features may make it into Kubernetes core. Others will likely always be recommended to be handled as 3rd party.
OpenKruise can have successful 3rd party CRDs and controllers that do not go into Kubernetes itself. I expect this case to be likely.
If the Kubernetes project would actually prefer these experiments to take place in a separate project, does that make OpenKruise the natural home for all workload-related CRD ideas, or some other scope?
SIG Apps does not believe there should be one home for "all workload-related CRD ideas". They can happen in many places and innovation can happen under many projects. How those projects organize around people and governance may vary.
I hope this helps answer the questions of SIG Apps. If there are more I'm happy to try and chase them down.
And, thanks for pointing OpenKruise at SIG Apps. It lead to a good conversation.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020, at 2:04 PM, Xiang Li wrote:
(I am familiar with the team behind the project, and the background of the project).
For any sizable companies using Kubeternetes, it is not uncommon to have tens of generic controllers that are not specific to any particular application.
The motivation of OpenKruise project is to find a subset of these controllers that are commonly useful to a number of users rather than just one company. So we can reduce some duplication, improve collaboration and help the community to grow.
Yes, if some enhancements or workload types are popular enough that everyone wants then, we hope them to be upstreamed to Kubernetes project itself.
From:Liz Rice <liz@...>
Sent At:2020 Sep. 9 (Wed.) 10:39
To:Matt Farina <matt@...>
Cc:CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject:Re: [cncf-toc] Sandbox Projects included from September 8 TOC meeting
OpenKruise is experimenting with a number of workload-related resource definitions, some of which are enhancements to existing core K8s resources. We're happy to see these experiments and want to support them, but we wondered if it makes more sense for them to belong within the purview of the Kubernetes project rather than as a standalone project? My understanding is that OpenKruise intends to eventually contribute successful experiments to upstream Kubernetes anyway.
There's also a question about project scope. If the Kubernetes project would actually prefer these experiments to take place in a separate project, does that make OpenKruise the natural home for all workload-related CRD ideas, or some other scope?
The discussion was recorded (I'm sure Amy can provide the link if she hasn't already circulated it) and that might be worth listening to for more context, if you have the time.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:21 PM Matt Farina <matt@...
OpenKruise has reached out to Kubernetes SIG Apps and we will discuss the project.
For context, why would the TOC suggest OpenKruise fall under k8s instead of being it's own CNCF sandbox project?
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020, at 4:05 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin wrote:
The projects included are:
Open Service Mesh
Other projects not brought to vote:
checkov - further conversation needed re: roadmap, holding for updated roadmap
Dataset Lifecycle Framework - next steps: TOC conversation with SIG Storage, Kubernetes COSI KEP
OpenKruise - discussion with Kubernetes Steering Committee needed, SIG Apps - should this be a subproject?
Predator - no clear roadmap, resubmit with clearer roadmap
SchemaHero - no clear roadmap, resubmit with clearer roadmap
Keylime - scheduled for next closed meeting, September 22
As part of this process, we've now added a new question to the sandbox proposal form: "Why do you want to contribute your project to the CNCF? What would you like to get out of being part of the CNCF?"
Welcome to these new sandbox projects!
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...