Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PROCESS CHANGE: Merge Client and Functions WG together #1554

Open
dsimansk opened this issue Apr 23, 2024 · 26 comments
Open

PROCESS CHANGE: Merge Client and Functions WG together #1554

dsimansk opened this issue Apr 23, 2024 · 26 comments
Assignees

Comments

@dsimansk
Copy link
Contributor

dsimansk commented Apr 23, 2024

Things to include with your process proposal (delete this text):

  • Expected benefits. Who gains the benefits? Why will they benefit?

Both Client WG and Functions WG represent a portion of Knative CLI. They are designed with different use cases in mind, but under the hood it's a terminal API.

Currently, there's no high demand or interest in Client WG from both users and contributors POV.

We have had a conversion wrt/ this proposal during previous TOC reviews, and as a part of community health discussion.

  • Expected costs. Who bears the costs? How heavy are they?

Less WG calls, in addition joint WG update.

  • Timeframe for implementation / rollout.

Week to sync WG calls and make announcements on channels, mailing list etc.

  • Are you willing to drive the process, or is this a request for help?

Yes

Finally, I'd like to ask you all to vote for the name of this joint WG. @rhuss mentioned it would be great to keep Functions on top level rather than wrapping it under e.g. CLI WG. Please use thumb up on the comments below. Feel free to propose any suggestion that might be interesting.

New WG name proposals:

  • Functions & Client Working Group
  • Functions & CLI Working Group
  • CLI Working Group

/cc @lkingland @rhuss
/cc @knative/technical-oversight-committee
/cc @knative/steering-committee

@dsimansk
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsimansk commented Apr 23, 2024

Functions & Client Working Group

Vote with thump up for this proposed name

@dsimansk
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsimansk commented Apr 23, 2024

Functions & CLI Working Group

Update:
A plural form of CLIs might be a better options

Functions & CLI Working Group
Explained here: #1554 (comment)

Vote with thump up for this proposed name

@dsimansk
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsimansk commented Apr 23, 2024

CLI Working Group

Vote with thump up for this proposed name

@dsimansk dsimansk changed the title PROCESS CHANGE: Merging Client and Functions WG together PROCESS CHANGE: Merge Client and Functions WG together Apr 23, 2024
@cardil
Copy link
Contributor

cardil commented Apr 23, 2024

I think the name should be short and self-explanatory. Keeping "Functions" in WG name serves just historical purposes. New contributors would already understand they should look for Func work under CLI.

This isn't synonymous with the marketing aspect. We should keep the Func as one of the pillars of Knative, in prominent place on the website, docs, and our presentations. Those two are completely separate things to me.

@dprotaso
Copy link
Member

+1 from me

@lkingland
Copy link
Member

Looking forward to how this will help align our upcoming UX improvements!

@dsimansk
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsimansk commented Apr 23, 2024

A quick update after chatting with @lkingland on Functions WG call. The CLI will be spelled in plural form CLIs to create a future-proof umbrella for additional extensions.

Functions & CLIs Working Group

@dsimansk
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsimansk commented Apr 23, 2024

I think the name should be short and self-explanatory. Keeping "Functions" in WG name serves just historical purposes. New contributors would already understand they should look for Func work under CLI.

This isn't synonymous with the marketing aspect. We should keep the Func as one of the pillars of Knative, in prominent place on the website, docs, and our presentations. Those two are completely separate things to me.

Indeed, it's a governance implementation detail.

Roland's idea was aiming to keep "Functions" very prominent from all different angles. E.g. whenever you would go through community calendar looking at different WG calls/meetings - directly spotting "Functions... WG" rather than "CLI WG".

@psschwei
Copy link
Contributor

+1 for merging, no opinion on name

@davidhadas
Copy link
Contributor

davidhadas commented Apr 24, 2024

+1
No strong opinion regarding the name - I am fine with a short one (e.g. CLI WG) and having the WG description stating it also handles Functions.

@rhuss
Copy link
Contributor

rhuss commented Apr 29, 2024

The reason why I think that having "Functions" in the name of the Working group is to match our structure that considers the three pillars "Serving", "Eventing" and "Functions". This should be reflected in the organisational structure, too. See also the TOC of our docs:

Here we might have still the issue that we refer to the Knative client as "Knative CLI". This documentation than also would need to be restructured, too.

@nainaz
Copy link
Contributor

nainaz commented Apr 29, 2024

I am of the same mind as @rhuss that we should keep functions in the name ( for all the reasons listed above). People would come looking for Functions more than the CLIs . CLI is integral part of many projects. having just CLI in the name doesn't serve much purpose.
Functions and CLIs is good for me. IF we have to drop then it shouldn't be Functions.

@salaboy
Copy link
Member

salaboy commented Apr 30, 2024

I agree with @rhuss Functions has become a fundamental part of the project.

@aliok
Copy link
Member

aliok commented May 9, 2024

+1 on merging from me.

I also like the name Functions better.

@aliok
Copy link
Member

aliok commented May 22, 2024

Can we have a +1 from leads of Client WG and Functions WG , TOC members and SC, if we want to go with this idea:

  • Merge Client WG and Functions WG under "Functions & CLIs Working Group"

Summer is approaching, and we probably won't be able to vote this in a SC/TOC meeting (low meeting participation in summer).

@aliok
Copy link
Member

aliok commented May 22, 2024

cc @knative/steering-committee @knative/technical-oversight-committee @knative/client-wg-leads @knative/functions-wg-leads

@aliok
Copy link
Member

aliok commented May 22, 2024

+1 on "Merge Client WG and Functions WG under "Functions & CLIs Working Group"

@rhuss
Copy link
Contributor

rhuss commented May 22, 2024

+1 for merging both WG, "Function & CLI Working Group" sound good to me (I would avoid the plural-s)

@dprotaso
Copy link
Member

+1 on merging

@nainaz
Copy link
Contributor

nainaz commented May 22, 2024

+1 for merging both WG.
Name proposal: Function & CLI Working Group

@evankanderson
Copy link
Member

I support a merge, but I think this is the TOC's call. (It could be done async)

@psschwei
Copy link
Contributor

psschwei commented Jun 4, 2024

I think we have TOC agreement on a merge, just need a final decision on the name.

"Function & CLI Working Group" seems the popular choice, which works for me. Just need a consensus on "CLI" vs. "CLIs"...

@dprotaso
Copy link
Member

dprotaso commented Jun 4, 2024

"Function & Client Working Group" might cover the basis that there could be many CLIs ?

I don't mind what we go with.

@psschwei
Copy link
Contributor

psschwei commented Jun 4, 2024

Same here, I'm ok with whatever the WG decides

@nrrso
Copy link
Contributor

nrrso commented Jun 10, 2024

+1 for merging both WG.

Preferred Name: Function & CLI Working Group

@aliok
Copy link
Member

aliok commented Jul 23, 2024

@dsimansk Is there any blocker for this merger?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: In Progress
Development

No branches or pull requests