Charter proposal for infrastructure lifecycle wg #691
Conversation
GenPage
requested review from
thschue,
joshgav,
lianmakesthings,
kgamanji,
angellk,
linsun and
roberthstrand
as code owners
✅ Deploy Preview for tag-app-delivery ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
|
Yay! 🙌🏼 |
GenPage
force-pushed
the
infra-lifecycle-wg
branch
2 times, most recently
from
fa9b6be to
4fdc4bd
Compare
|
@roberthstrand Sounds good, I'll put it on the agenda for this friday. Also rebased to fixed the DCO check. |
|
@roberthstrand pending our discussion after the general meeting. I've added the chairs to the charter proposal |
|
Thank you @GenPage, I will bring this along to the TOC. |
|
|
||
| ## Working mode/expected outcome | ||
|
|
||
| The Infrastructure Lifecycle Working Group will achieve its goals through regular meetings ([Zoom](https://zoom-lfx.platform.linuxfoundation.org/meeting/96148400770?password=767d45df-c7cf-4400-9239-e789115cc85e&invite=true)), open communication channels ([#wg-infrastructure-lifecycle](https://cloud-native.slack.com/archives/C06USDTN683) on Slack), and collaboration with other TAGs. This will result in a standardised approach for managing the lifecycle of infrastructure in a cloud-native setting, develop a set of comprehensive best practices, and publish valuable resources for the cloud-native community around infrastructure lifecycle management |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi, could you specify what is the success criteria of the WG? I'd like to understand when we should continue or discontinue the WG.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hello @linsun, I'm not sure if this is something that we intend to define in the charter itself as I haven't seen examples of this in other WG charters. Do you have any examples? I happy to bring to up for discussion in our next WG meeting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@linsun Actually, @TheFoxAtWork left some excellent comments about the stated goals of the WG in the charter that I think we could clarify and address, which would also address your question. Please let me know what you think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you, I will follow up in the google doc :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @linsun, we’ve narrowed the working group’s scope to a single deliverable: developing a framework for managing infrastructure lifecycles in public, private, or hybrid cloud environments based on cloud-native principles. This framework will ensure that infrastructure is secure, resilient, manageable, sustainable, and observable. :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Originally, the Platform Working Group focused on clarifying the coordination between application development and infrastructure delivery. While this remains important, the group's focus has evolved to consider platforms as complete products. This broader perspective necessitates a renewed emphasis on the underlying infrastructure abstractions that provide the essential building blocks for these platform offerings
Love this! I am very excited to have more WGs allowing for more deep investigation into the pieces of successful cloud native adoption/delivery.
Once all accepted, let's find time to talk about some of the more infra focused open topics raised over the last couple of years in the platform WG and see if they fit with your early work.
infra-lifecycle-wg/README.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Meetings | ||
|
|
||
| * Meeting schedule: Bi-weekly on Friday at [1600 UTC](https://dateful.com/convert/utc?t=16) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If it's helpful, we just had a learning that pinning to UTC is difficult for people. They end up with this clashing 6 months of the year. For that reason we decided to switch to pinning to London time (though really any timezone with daylight savings would work).
Signed-off-by: Dylan Page <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dylan Page <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Bruno Schaatsbergen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Bruno Schaatsbergen <[email protected]>
bschaatsbergen
force-pushed
the
infra-lifecycle-wg
branch
from
84997c4 to
ae3687e
Compare
Signed-off-by: Bruno Schaatsbergen <[email protected]>
|
We've addressed comments and feedback, and the charter has been updated. |
|
I approve assuming TAG app delivery co-chairs are also in favor of this cc @lianmakesthings @roberthstrand @thschue |
|
+1 binding |
Thanks, @kgamanji. I noticed that your vote isn't reflected on the TOC issue in the binding votes. Just wanted to bring it to your attention. |
infra-lifecycle-wg/README.md
Outdated
| ## Chairs | ||
|
|
||
| - Bruno Schaatsbergen (@bschaatsbergen) | ||
| - Dylan Page (@genpage) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@GenPage has agreed to withdraw his chair nomination in favour of becoming TAG TL and liaison to the WG
Signed-off-by: Bruno Schaatsbergen <[email protected]>
|
Vote passed by the TOC, cncf/toc#1383 (comment) 🎉 |
This PR includes the content of the Charter definition for the Infrastrucutre Lifecycle Working Group. The content was discussed in the following google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eK7m13F8SHuL2ji0U__5S_dlD2UBX0POquj6AtBWkoc/edit
@lianmakesthings @thschue @roberthstrand Let me know what you think