Re: Sandbox Projects included from September 8 TOC meeting

andy shi

During the last CNCF sandbox review, the TOC wanted the K8s upstream to provide opinions of project OpenKruise. After the meeting, we reached out to Sig Apps and K8s Steering committee. The Steering committee directed us to Sig Arch instead. Since then, we have had discussions with both Sigs. For your convenience, I'm pasting both responses below.
In summary, both Sigs evaluated the OpenKruise project and suggested OpenKruise is better to stay as an outside project instead of becoming part of upstream K8s.
We have done our due diligence and hope to get another vote at the next review meeting.

Best Regards,
Andy Shi on behalf of project OpenKruise

From Matt of Sig Apps:
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.

Matt Farina"

From John of Sig Arch:
"We discussed this in the SIG Architecture meeting today. While generally workload controllers are within scope of the Kubernetes project, it is up to SIG Apps to decide if they are willing to take these on as SIG-sponsored projects. As Matt suggests, it's fine for these to exist as external workload controllers.

With respect to upstreaming, the preference of SIG Arch would be to see individual features move into existing workload controllers as they mature, rather than creation of whole new controllers. The goal here would be to avoid a proliferation of controllers that makes choices very difficult for consumers. Of course, if there is some fundamental difference between the new controller and all existing ones, then a new one may be warranted. But creation of a new one should be done with an abundance of caution. Again this would ultimately be the decision of SIG Apps.


On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:05 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
The TOC has reviewed the current Sandbox projects applying for inclusion. 

The projects included are: 
Open Service Mesh 

Other projects not brought to vote: 
checkov - further conversation needed re: roadmap, holding for updated roadmap
protop - no roadmap! Should this be a subproject of gRPC? TOC would like feedback from the gRPC project. 
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@...

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.