Proposal Release Updates

[varodrig]

This PR proposes updates to the Kubeflow Release process

Closes https://github.com/kubeflow/community/issues/841

[varodrig]

We need feedback/comments/approval on this proposal. Since release 1.10 is finished and we need to start planning for next release.

Thanks, CC @juliusvonkohout @franciscojavierarceo @andreyvelich @tarilabs @tarekabouzeid @thesuperzapper

[thesuperzapper]

@andreyvelich and @kubeflow/kubeflow-steering-committee wanted to discuss this as it will significantly impact the project, and we probably need to agree on what the future of "Kubeflow Platform" is before we commit to a quarterly release cycle for it.

/hold

[tarekabouzeid]

Thanks @varodrig this looks good, a suggestion maybe is that the liaisons be responsible for technical documentation for each WG instead of separate role for technical writer.

[varodrig]

@andreyvelich and @kubeflow/kubeflow-steering-committee wanted to discuss this as it will significantly impact the project, and we probably need to agree on what the future of "Kubeflow Platform" is before we commit to a quarterly release cycle for it.

/hold

Let's see if we can start with some of the initiatives.

[juliusvonkohout]

@varodrig may i commit my changes and merge the PR ?

[juliusvonkohout]

We actually need to overwrite the release handbook with this document.

[juliusvonkohout]

@varodrig we just discussed this in the KSC meeting and i modified it accordingly. So please check if you have any strong objections or whether we can merge it by end of the week.

[juliusvonkohout]

/lgtm

[juliusvonkohout]

@juliusvonkohout and @franciscojavierarceo @andreyvelich @johnugeorge @terrytangyuan Please review my comments and questions. I noticed some sections were deleted, but I'm not sure why, and I'd like to understand more about this, such as if the process is no longer valid and why the reason is or if it'll be replaced. Please add comments to clarify. thanks

Given the goals mentioned in the proposal we want to cut down by 70%. Maybe we have achieved 30 % so far. The goal is to make it short and consise with only the essential / critical parts. Less process, more automation, less text.

Just imagine what else would you have to rip out to slim it down and then whether something is really missing and what else you would remove instead to keep it simple.

So please check the current version and go from there backwards, what critical part is missing, worth the characters and time to maintain it and just correct it.

For sure I have missed something, but that's better than the previous bureaucracy overkill. Let's make mistakes, let's fail and iterate. Also in follow up PRs if needed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle 20% text/time/effort 80 % solution.

[varodrig]

@juliusvonkohout and @franciscojavierarceo @andreyvelich @johnugeorge @terrytangyuan Please review my comments and questions. I noticed some sections were deleted, but I'm not sure why, and I'd like to understand more about this, such as if the process is no longer valid and why the reason is or if it'll be replaced. Please add comments to clarify. thanks

Given the goals mentioned in the proposal we want to cut down by 70%. Maybe we have achieved 30 % so far. The goal is to make it short and consise with only the essential / critical parts. Less process, more automation, less text.

Just imagine what else would you have to rip out to slim it down and then whether something is really missing and what else you would remove instead to keep it simple.

So please check the current version and go from there backwards, what critical part is missing, worth the characters and time to maintain it and just correct it.

For sure I have missed something, but that's better than the previous bureaucracy overkill. Let's make mistakes, let's fail and iterate. Also in follow up PRs if needed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle 20% text/time/effort 80 % solution.

ok, I'll take another look from that angle and I might add a few additions.

[varodrig]

@juliusvonkohout added two lines. let me know if you are ok. cc @andreyvelich @franciscojavierarceo

[varodrig]

/hold cancel

[google-oss-prow[bot]]

@varodrig: you cannot LGTM your own PR.

In response to this:

/lgtm

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[juliusvonkohout]

@juliusvonkohout added two lines. let me know if you are ok. cc @andreyvelich @franciscojavierarceo

/lgtm /approve

thank you. if you notice something later you can always add it.

[google-oss-prow[bot]]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: juliusvonkohout

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• ~~OWNERS~~ [juliusvonkohout]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[thesuperzapper]

@kubeflow/kubeflow-steering-committee

Unless I'm mistaken, this wasn't voted on by the KSC, it will need to be reverted until it is like all other KEPs that pertain to the overall community.

Especially as it proposes changing the release cycle of Kubeflow.