Open dsimansk opened 2 months ago
Functions & Client Working Group
Vote with thump up for this proposed name
Functions & CLI Working Group
Update: A plural form of CLIs might be a better options
Functions & CLI Working Group Explained here: https://github.com/knative/community/issues/1554#issuecomment-2072420277
Vote with thump up for this proposed name
CLI Working Group
Vote with thump up for this proposed name
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.
+1 from me
Looking forward to how this will help align our upcoming UX improvements!
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
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".
+1 for merging, no opinion on name
+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.
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:
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.
I agree with @rhuss Functions has become a fundamental part of the project.
+1 on merging from me.
I also like the name Functions better.
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:
Summer is approaching, and we probably won't be able to vote this in a SC/TOC meeting (low meeting participation in summer).
cc @knative/steering-committee @knative/technical-oversight-committee @knative/client-wg-leads @knative/functions-wg-leads
+1 on "Merge Client WG and Functions WG under "Functions & CLIs Working Group"
+1 for merging both WG, "Function & CLI Working Group" sound good to me (I would avoid the plural-s)
+1 on merging
+1 for merging both WG. Name proposal: Function & CLI Working Group
I support a merge, but I think this is the TOC's call. (It could be done async)
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"...
"Function & Client Working Group" might cover the basis that there could be many CLIs ?
I don't mind what we go with.
Same here, I'm ok with whatever the WG decides
+1 for merging both WG.
Preferred Name: Function & CLI Working Group
Things to include with your process proposal (delete this text):
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.
Less WG calls, in addition joint WG update.
Week to sync WG calls and make announcements on channels, mailing list etc.
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