Remove the older/defunct workinggroups folder

[dims]

All of the efforts originally called working groups have been folded into TAGs. Will add all the github handles in the markdown files just in case in my next comment ...

Signed-off-by: Davanum Srinivas [email protected]

[xmulligan]

Would you also want to remove them from the README in the same PR? https://github.com/cncf/toc#working-groups

[dims]

CC'ing folks who were listed in the mark down files.

• Alex Chircop (@chira001)
• Alexis Richardson (@monadic)
• Allen Samuels (@allensamuels)
• Amir Chaudhry (@amirmc)
• Antonio Gulli (@agulli)
• Ben Browning (@bbrowning)
• Ben Hindman (@benh)
• Bryan Boreham (@bboreham)
• Camille Fournier (@skamille)
• Cathy Zhang (@cathyhongzhang)
• Chad Arimura (@carimura)
• Chris McClimans (@hh)
• Chris Munns (@teknogeek0)
• Christopher Liljenstolpe (@liljenstolpe)
• Clint Byrum (@spamaps)
• Clinton Kitson (@clintonskitson)
• Daniel Krook (@krook)
• Daniel Nardo (@dnardo)
• Deepak Bansal (????)
• Denver Williams (@dlx)
• Doug Davis (@duglin)
• Gianluca Arbezzano (@gianarb)
• Gou Rao (@gourao)
• Jason Venner (@jvmirdel)
• Jie Yu (@jieyu)
• John Belamaric (@johnbelamaric)
• John Gossman (@johngossman)
• Jonathan Boulle (@jonboulle)
• Ken Owens (@kenowens12)
• Lee Calcote (@lcalcote)
• Louis Fourie (@lfourie)
• Lucina Stricko (@lixuna)
• Madhu Venugopal (@mavenugo)
• Mark Peek (@markpeek)
• Minhan Xia (@freehan)
• Orit Nissan-Messing (@iguazio)
• Pengfei Ni (@feiskyer)
• Quanyi Ma (@genedna)
• Quinton Hoole (@quintonhoole)
• Sarah Allen (@ultrasaurus)
• Steve Wong (@cantbewong)
• Steven Tan (@stevenphtan)
• Taylor Carpenter (@taylor)
• Thomas Graf (@tgraf__)
• Venkat Ramakrishnan (@katkrish)
• Vinod Jayaraman (@jvinod)
• Yaron Haviv (@iguazio)
• Ben Hindman (@benh)
• Camille Fournier (@skamille)
• Ken Owens (@kenowens12)

[dims]

@xmulligan DONE!

[duglin]

@dims the Serverless WG is still alive and kickin'. We're not part of a TAG so I'm not sure what that means for these plans/PR.

[taylor]

@dims the Serverless WG is still alive and kickin'. We're not part of a TAG so I'm not sure what that means for these plans/PR.

Some working groups spanned multiple TAGs, so it was previously decided to allow those type of WGs to be at the "top level". I'm interested in how this will be addressed.

[dims]

@duglin ACK ( trying to shake the tree :) ) @taylor ACK (which ones? - from the list that is being pruned? )

[dims]

@duglin i'll hold this PR for some time so we all have time to discuss things, in the mean time, can you please update he serverless WG markdown file with latest info? (whatever you can is fine, seems like this has not been touched for a number of years)

Goals
Non-goals
Mailing list information
The location of meetings / agenda / notes
Initial interested parties to show that there are multiple people across multiple orgs interested
The chair(s) and TOC sponsor being explicitly listed so they are discoverable

[taylor]

@dims not specifically from the list being pruned. From the list being pruned, while the CI WG would be this type, I do not think it is currently active so may not matter at this time. @hh thoughts?. For the serverless wg I'll let @duglin speak to regarding if it fits in 1 TAG neatly or works across multiple.

Outside of the list to be pruned, we would need to go through the /cncf org to see what all is there and does not currently fit under a single TAG. I was not aware that all other WGs had been folded into TAGs though, so maybe there are not any except the CNF WG... I can speak to the CNF WG which I'm involved in and say it could fit under multiple TAGs including TAG Network and TAG Application Delivery so it was never pulled into a specific TAG.

[dims]

@taylor since CNF WG is not even listed in https://github.com/cncf/toc/tree/main/workinggroups :( is/was the info on CNF WG somewhere else?

[dims]

NOTE: this is related to https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/868

[taylor]

@dims IIRC, I think when we asked about where things should go it was still being restructured and that area might go away. Quite a few new WGs have formed since that original setup, https://github.com/cncf/toc/tree/main/workinggroups, including Cartografos, UDPA, Environmental Sustainability. That folder probably needed to be scrubbed or at least refreshed as it was created before the renaming of SIG to TAG and the prior TAG/SIG responsibilities discussions (google doc, etc).

[dims]

@taylor is there a trail (PR? Issues?) of how each of these groups formed? and under whose blessing? (TAG or TOC?)

Note: "Environmental Sustainability" is now a TAG and the charter is being written https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/903

Please tag folks in these other "Working Groups" here in this PR (for now!) So we can figure out who / how many of these are there in our community.

[amye]

CI and Serverless were the only working groups who did not transition into a SIG (now TAG) around the time that the SIG charter was approved, those are the only two that came out of the TOC's area.

Cloud Native Network Function Working Group (CNF-WG) was started as a separate initiative in 2021, but I'll let @taylor speak to that.

UDPA is actually XDS and is also a separate initiative.

Cartographos is an End User community project.

Honestly, it looks like we have namespace collision using 'Working Group' for a variety of different initiatives, some under TOC, End User and general CNCF, which is the source of the confusion.

[taylor]

What @amye said... Name collisions and different uses.

@dims in any case I was just pointing out that there were reasons for the top level in the past. 🤷

[duglin]

@dims done https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/913

[dims]

thanks for the context @taylor and @amye

[dims]

@duglin next question, looks like there was some thinking about serverless WG into SIG (now TAG) in https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/417 . Given that knative is in CNCF, do we want to think about turning the WG into a TAG?

cc @cncf/cncf-serverless-wg

[hh]

Let’s drop the existing CI wg, and we’ll relaunch the ongoing initiatives under #tag-contributor-strategy and a new Contributor Infrastructure WG

[dims]

@hh makes sense

[duglin]

@dims the idea was abandoned because we could never dig our way out of the "what is serverless and how do we differentiate it from the other TAGs?" rathole. So, we stopped trying and decided to just keep what we had since it was working. IMO I think putting Knative under the serverless WG wouldn't be a bad choice as it would go nicely with CloudEvents and ServerlessWorkflow.

[dims]

I would like us to try again @duglin, i will go through the detailed discussions in that PR and we should talk in a week or so (am travelling next week!). will pop up in your WG meeting after that.

[duglin]

Ping me via slack when you're ready - it would be better to chat outside of our weekly meetings first

[dims]

Ping me via slack when you're ready - it would be better to chat outside of our weekly meetings first

will do!

[cathyhongzhang]

I like @dims's suggestion. It is worth exploring turning the WG into a TAG. I have been part of the serverless WG. I would be happy to join the discussion and help sort this out.

[dims]

thanks @cathyhongzhang will make sure to include you.

[riaankleinhans]

CNCF CI WG is not active, the efforts ii was going to put there are now centered underneath #tag-contributor-strategy and an incubating Contributor Infrastructure WG. /cc @hh