Proposal for donating kpack to CNB

[jjbustamante]

Readable

Signed-off-by: Juan Bustamante jbustamante@vmware.com

[buildpack-bot]

Maintainers,

As you review this RFC please queue up issues to be created using the following commands:

/queue-issue <repo> "<title>" [labels]...
/unqueue-issue <uid>

Issues

(none)

[jjbustamante]

Some feedback from the Working Group meeting last week (10/13)

• Add a section to describe how do we propose to handle the slack channel migration
• Describe how to handle trademarks and wordmarks from logos and stuff like that
• Add in the governance section how the RFC process (kpack has their own process) is going to be handle

[natalieparellano]

Is there a reason this is still in draft? Can we un-draft it?

[jjbustamante]

Is there a reason this is still in draft? Can we un-draft it?

Not 100% sure, but I think we will do it after merging the maintainer component role RFC

[hone]

Sorry, for taking so long for reviewing this RFC. From the TOC doc from @samj1912 and overall discussion, I believe the RFC is proposing the donation of kpack into "buildpacks-community" as a staging ground with plans to move into "buildpacks".

Here are the open items I've identified that should be merged in before migrating to the Buildpacks Community Organization (Phase 1):

• RELEASE.md documenting the current kpack process. Add RELEASE.md buildpacks-community/kpack#1216
• CONTRIBUTING.md: Add documentation for kpack CONTRIBUTORS.md buildpacks-community/kpack#1149
• Simplified build use case / pack user onboarding documentation: Adding Build resource documentation buildpacks-community/kpack#1156
• List of all external dependencies with licensing info and they're permissively licensed with a Apache 2.0 compatible license
• GOVERNANCE.md, document project structure/team roles in the repo: Adding GOVERNANCE.md buildpacks-community/kpack#1220

In the TOC doc, governance is marked as a phase 2 item, but a clear governance structure will help with some of the Phase 2 items so I'd advocate for an interim one in phase 1.

Here are my key times before migrating to the Buildpacks Organization (Phase 2):

• SECURITY.md, documented security policy: Adding SECURITY.md buildpacks-community/kpack#1209
• Migrate Windows builds to open and accessible infrastructure
• Document kpack's packaged lifecycle and why it uses it instead of the official lifecycle image: Document why kpack uses a different lifecycle image buildpacks-community/kpack#1131
• Document kpack scalability and failure modes: Document kpack scalability and failure modes buildpacks-community/kpack#1132
• CNCF Security Review
• Maintainers capable of releasing kpack from two different organizations

While not part of the required list, I'd love to see:

• Optional support of project.toml features like inline buildpacks + dynamic buildpacks: Add support for project.toml buildpacks-community/kpack#288
• Debug builds similar to pack build -v
• Provide signed releases with SBOM availability

[jjbustamante]

Thanks for the feedback @hone, I just created a PR for the RELEASE.md file

[hone]

The three unknown licenses from go-license are all compatible from checking by hand:

project	license
github.com/alibabacloud-go/cr-20160607/client	Apache 2.0
github.com/alibabacloud-go/tea-xml/service	Apache 2.0
github.com/matthewmcnew/archtest	MIT

Needs to re-review given the changes. :)

[jjbustamante]

Update
Yesterday the Governance.md was merged, I think we are ready again to review the requirements for the donation Phase 1

cc @samj1912 @hone @jkutner @tomkennedy513 @matthewmcnew

[natalieparellano]

Should we move this into status/voting?

[hone]

Thanks for all the work @jjbustamante and the rest of the kpack team has put in this. For the governance, does kpack have a notion of contributors or just maintainers?

[hone]

Moving this to voting with a close a week from today of July 6.

[jjbustamante]

Thanks for all the work @jjbustamante and the rest of the kpack team has put in this. For the governance, does kpack have a notion of contributors or just maintainers?

We do have contributors but I missed specifying them. I will update the project, because it is important to define the contributor role.

Just for help others: I took the original governance template document from CNCF, but there is another one I can use to define the contributor role.

Thanks Terrence!!!