2022-01-24 23:17:09 +00:00
|
|
|
# Proposals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This directory contains proposal documents for significant enhancements and changes to Pinniped.
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-15 18:14:59 +00:00
|
|
|
Note that prior to early 2022, proposal documents were written as public Google Docs or Hackmd docs, so they were not
|
|
|
|
stored here.
|
2022-01-24 23:17:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-15 18:14:59 +00:00
|
|
|
# Proposal Process
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The purpose of a proposal is to build consensus on a problem statement and solution design before starting work on the
|
|
|
|
implementation. A proposal is a design document that describes a significant change to Pinniped. A proposal must be
|
|
|
|
sponsored (or co-authored) by at least one maintainer. Proposals can be submitted and reviewed by anyone in the
|
|
|
|
community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## When to Submit a Proposal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If there is significant risk with a potential feature or track of work (such as complexity, cost to implement, product
|
|
|
|
viability, etc.), then we recommend creating a proposal for feedback and approval. If a potential feature is well
|
|
|
|
understood and doesn't impose risk, then we recommend a standard GitHub issue to clarify the details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are considering creating a PR to change Pinniped's source code, and you are not sure if the change is significant
|
|
|
|
enough to require using the proposal process, then please ask the maintainers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you would like to simply share a problem that you are having, or share an idea for a potential feature, and you are
|
|
|
|
not planning on designing a technical solution or submitting an implementation PR, then please feel free to create a
|
|
|
|
standard GitHub issue instead of using the proposal process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## How to Submit a Proposal
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 18:42:10 +00:00
|
|
|
Before submitting a proposal, please create a tracking issue. Open a new GitHub issue in this repo and choose the
|
|
|
|
"Proposal tracking" issue template. After creating the issue, note the issue's number. This tracking PR can be used
|
|
|
|
as a place for conversations beyond/between the proposal PR and implementation PRs.
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-15 18:14:59 +00:00
|
|
|
To create a proposal, submit a PR to this repo introducing a new subdirectory under the `proposals` directory with a
|
2022-02-17 18:42:10 +00:00
|
|
|
terse name (for example, `0001_my-feature-name/`) prefixed by the tracking issue's number. In that new
|
2022-02-15 18:14:59 +00:00
|
|
|
subdirectory, create a `README.md` containing the core proposal. Include other files as necessary to help support
|
|
|
|
understanding of the feature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To make your new proposal known to all other contributors, please send a link to your new proposal PR on the Kubernetes
|
2022-07-25 19:07:18 +00:00
|
|
|
Slack in [#pinniped](https://go.pinniped.dev/community/slack)
|
2022-02-15 18:14:59 +00:00
|
|
|
or via the [Pinniped mailing list](mailto:project-pinniped@googlegroups.com).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author(s) of proposals for major changes will give a time period of no less than five (5) working days for comment and
|
|
|
|
remain cognizant of popular observed world holidays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't already have a maintainer to sponsor your proposal, then reach out via Slack or the mailing list with a
|
|
|
|
description of the problem statement. If one or more of the maintainers agrees that the problem statement is within the
|
|
|
|
scope of the project (see [SCOPE.md](SCOPE.md)) and is appropriate to be addressed by a proposal, then a maintainer will
|
|
|
|
be assigned as your proposal's sponsor. The sponsor can provide you with support during the drafting of the proposal,
|
|
|
|
including sharing additional project and roadmap context as it relates to your problem statement, answering questions,
|
|
|
|
giving feedback, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Proposal Template
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The below template is an example `README.md` for a new proposal. Other than the high-level details at the top of the
|
|
|
|
template (title, authors, status, sponsor, and approval_date)
|
|
|
|
and the disclaimer at the top, please use whichever sections make the most sense for your proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
title: "The Name of My Proposal"
|
|
|
|
authors: [ "@margocrawf", "@enj" ]
|
|
|
|
status: "draft"
|
|
|
|
sponsor: [ "@cfryanr" ]
|
|
|
|
approval_date: ""
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Disclaimer*: Proposals are point-in-time designs and decisions.
|
|
|
|
Once approved and implemented, they become historical documents.
|
|
|
|
If you are reading an old proposal, please be aware that the
|
|
|
|
features described herein might have continued to evolve since.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# <Proposal Title>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Problem Statement
|
|
|
|
This is a short summary of the problem that exists, why it needs to be
|
|
|
|
solved: what specific needs are being met. Compelling problem statements
|
|
|
|
include concrete examples and use cases (even if only by reference).
|
|
|
|
How exactly the proposal would meet those needs should be located in the
|
|
|
|
"Proposal" section, not this one. The goal of this section is to help
|
|
|
|
readers quickly empathize with the target users' current experience to
|
|
|
|
motivate the proposed change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### How Pinniped Works Today (as of version vX.X.X)
|
|
|
|
How Pinniped works today in the context of the problem statement.
|
|
|
|
This will typically detail how Pinniped falls short of supporting
|
|
|
|
the desired use case(s).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Terminology / Concepts
|
|
|
|
Define any terms or concepts that are used throughout this proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Proposal
|
|
|
|
The primary content of the proposal. Subsections will explain how the
|
|
|
|
problem(s) will be addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Goals and Non-goals
|
|
|
|
A short list of what the goals of this proposal are and are not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Specification / How it Solves the Use Cases
|
|
|
|
Detailed explanation of the proposal's design. This will typically
|
|
|
|
also detail how the specification supports the desired use cases.
|
|
|
|
If some use cases or parts of some use cases are being deferred
|
|
|
|
to a future proposal, that might be mentioned here as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### API Changes
|
|
|
|
Describe how Pinniped's API will change. APIs include CLI commands,
|
|
|
|
HTTP endpoints, aggregated API endpoints, CRDs, etc.
|
|
|
|
Detail changes to their inputs, outputs, and behavior.
|
|
|
|
What will the default values be for any new fields or parameters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Upgrades
|
|
|
|
Describe how upgrading to a new version of Pinniped which includes
|
|
|
|
these features would work. Are the new changes backwards compatible?
|
|
|
|
Can new and old versions of the CLI and servers be mixed?
|
|
|
|
Will it be possible to downgrade after upgrading?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Tests
|
|
|
|
What kind of integration tests could be used to test the new features?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### New Dependencies
|
|
|
|
Would any significant new project dependencies be needed to support
|
|
|
|
the implementation? Consider Golang libraries, CI infrastructure, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Performance Considerations
|
|
|
|
Any concerns with scalability, performance, or reliability for the
|
|
|
|
implementation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Observability Considerations
|
|
|
|
Any new log statements or other considerations to make this feature
|
|
|
|
observable and debuggable for admin users?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Security Considerations
|
|
|
|
How does the proposal consider security? What makes the new features
|
|
|
|
secure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Usability Considerations
|
|
|
|
How does the proposal consider usability for the end user (kubectl user)
|
|
|
|
and for the admin user who installs and configures Pinniped?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Documentation Considerations
|
|
|
|
How will users discover the new features? Will docs changes be required
|
|
|
|
during implementation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Other Approaches Considered
|
|
|
|
Mention of other reasonable ways that the problem(s)
|
|
|
|
could be addressed with rationale for why they were less
|
|
|
|
desirable than the proposed approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Open Questions
|
|
|
|
A list of questions that need to be answered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Answered Questions
|
|
|
|
A list of questions that have been answered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Implementation Plan
|
|
|
|
Who will implement this proposal once it is finished and approved?
|
|
|
|
Do you already have ideas for how you might approach the implementation
|
|
|
|
in an iterative fashion? For a large proposal with an iterative plan,
|
|
|
|
where might you draw the line to define a minimum viable version?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Implementation PRs
|
|
|
|
This section is a placeholder to list the PRs that implement this proposal.
|
|
|
|
This section should be left empty until after the proposal is approved.
|
|
|
|
After implementation, the proposal can be updated to list related
|
|
|
|
implementation PRs.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Proposal States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Status | Definition |
|
|
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
|
|
|
| `draft` | The proposal is actively being written by the proposer. Not yet ready for review. |
|
|
|
|
| `in-review` | The proposal is being reviewed by the community and the project maintainers. |
|
|
|
|
| `accepted` | The proposal has been accepted by the project maintainers. |
|
|
|
|
| `rejected` | The proposal has been rejected by the project maintainers. |
|
|
|
|
| `implemented` | The proposal was accepted and has since been implemented. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Lifecycle of a Proposal
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 18:42:10 +00:00
|
|
|
1. Author creates a tracking issue.
|
|
|
|
2. Author adds a proposal by creating a PR in draft mode. (Authors can save their work until ready.)
|
|
|
|
3. Author updates the tracking issue to have a link to the PR.
|
|
|
|
4. When the author elaborates the proposal sufficiently to withstand critique they:
|
2022-02-15 18:14:59 +00:00
|
|
|
1. change the status to `in-review` and
|
|
|
|
2. mark the PR as "Ready for Review".
|
2022-02-17 18:42:10 +00:00
|
|
|
5. The community critiques the proposal by adding PR reviews in order to mature/converge on the proposal.
|
|
|
|
6. When the maintainers reach consensus or supermajority to accept a proposal, they:
|
2022-02-15 18:14:59 +00:00
|
|
|
1. change the status to `accepted`,
|
2022-02-17 18:56:13 +00:00
|
|
|
2. record both majority and dissenting opinions,
|
|
|
|
3. merge the PR, thus adding the new proposal to the `main` branch,
|
|
|
|
4. code implementation PRs are submitted separately to implement the solution.
|
2022-02-17 18:42:10 +00:00
|
|
|
7. During implementation of an accepted proposal:
|
2022-02-15 18:14:59 +00:00
|
|
|
1. if it is discovered that significant unanticipated changes are needed to the proposal, then the implementation
|
|
|
|
work should be paused and the proposal should be updated with the new details to be reviewed by the maintainers
|
2022-02-17 18:42:10 +00:00
|
|
|
again before resuming implementation,
|
2022-02-17 18:59:23 +00:00
|
|
|
2. as each implementation PR is created, the tracking issue should be updated to link to the new implementation PR, and
|
2022-02-17 18:42:10 +00:00
|
|
|
3. when all implementation PRs are merged, the proposal doc should be updated to have status `implemented` and to
|
|
|
|
list the related PRs, and the tracking issue should be closed.
|
|
|
|
8. When the maintainers do not reach consensus or supermajority, then the proposal is rejected, and they:
|
2022-02-15 18:14:59 +00:00
|
|
|
1. may mark the status `rejected`, and
|
2022-02-17 18:42:10 +00:00
|
|
|
2. close the PR with a note explaining the rejection, and
|
|
|
|
3. close the related tracking issue.
|
|
|
|
9. Rejected proposal PRs (and the corresponding tracking issue) may be reopened and moved back to `in-review` if
|
|
|
|
there are material changes to the proposal which address the reasons for rejection.
|
2022-02-15 18:14:59 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Proposal Review
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once a proposal PR marked as "Ready for Review", the community and all project maintainers will review the proposal. The
|
|
|
|
goal of the review is to gain an understanding of the problem being solved and the design of the proposed solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintainers will consider all aspects of the proposed problem and solution, including but not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Is the problem within scope for the project?
|
|
|
|
- Would the additional future cost of maintenance imposed by an implementation of the solution justify solving the
|
|
|
|
problem?
|
|
|
|
- Is the solution reasonably consistent with the rest of the project?
|
|
|
|
- How does the solution impact the usability, security, scalability, performance, observability, and reliability of
|
|
|
|
Pinniped?
|
|
|
|
- How might an implementation of the solution be architected and tested via automation?
|
|
|
|
- What risks might be introduced by an implementation of the solution?
|
|
|
|
- The opportunity cost of the time it would take to implement the solution, if the implementation is to be done by the
|
|
|
|
maintainers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Maintenance of Accepted Proposal Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposal documents reflect a point-in-time design and decision. Once approved, they become historical documents, not
|
|
|
|
living documents. There is no expectation that they will be maintained in the future. Instead, significant changes to a
|
|
|
|
feature which came from a previous proposal should be proposed as a fresh proposal. New proposals should link to
|
|
|
|
previous proposals for historical context when appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Getting Help with the Proposal Process
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please reach out to the maintainers in the Kubernetes Slack Workspace within
|
2022-07-25 19:07:18 +00:00
|
|
|
the [#pinniped](https://go.pinniped.dev/community/slack) channel or on
|
2022-02-15 18:14:59 +00:00
|
|
|
the [Pinniped mailing list](mailto:project-pinniped@googlegroups.com) with any questions.
|