TEP-0079: Tekton Catalog Support Tiers [Proposal - Ownership and Maintenance]

[jerop]

In TEP-0079: Tekton Catalog Support Tiers, we have defined
the problem statement for establishing support tiers for resources in
the Tekton Catalog.

In this change, we address the first goal of Ownership and Maintenance.

As previously discussed in TEP-0003, we propose creating
two support tiers, Community and Official, through separate Tekton Catalogs.

The Community Catalog would make it easy for contributors to share resources,
while the Official Catalog will be a corpus of high quality resources that
users can rely on. This distribution of ownership would ensure the workload
is sustainable.

The other goals and details of testing, scanning and verification will be
explored in the subsequent changes.

/kind tep
/cc @bobcatfish @vdemeester @vinamra28 @tektoncd/catalog-maintainers

[jerop]

/assign @afrittoli
/assign @vdemeester
/assign @bobcatfish

[lbernick]

/assign

[lbernick]

thanks @jerop, I feel my feedback has been addressed

/approve

[vdemeester]

I think this is a very good start 👍🏼

[bobcatfish]

I agree with the proposal overall! (And no strong feelings from me whether 1 repo or 2, I slightly prefer 2 repos b/c i think it makes it very clear what the tekton catalog owners are expected to maintain - and makes it easier for them to filter issues but can be okay with 1 repo also)

my main piece of feedback (and this might be me reading too much into the wording) is that it feels like this suggests that promotion from community to official is both a goal for community catalog items and also something that would happen frequently. i think that would be very difficult to sustain and suggest that we instead make it very appealing to contribute community items that stay community items, owned by the community members that submit them - i.e. these are not "less than" the official items, they just have different ownership (and maybe this ties into @afrittoli 's preference for 1 repo vs 2)

[vdemeester]

my main piece of feedback (and this might be me reading too much into the wording) is that it feels like this suggests that promotion from community to official is both a goal for community catalog items and also something that would happen frequently. i think that would be very difficult to sustain and suggest that we instead make it very appealing to contribute community items that stay community items, owned by the community members that submit them - i.e. these are not "less than" the official items, they just have different ownership (and maybe this ties into @afrittoli 's preference for 1 repo vs 2)

I agree with this, and I would do the parallel with the Docker Hub. The set of official image is relatively small compared to what is stored in the Hub. The set of images supported there is driven by bandwidth and will of the team that maintains it and "usefulness" of them (aka images of things that are often used such as known linux distros, DBMS, …). We should aim for the same kind of thing here. There should be way more items in the community catalog than in the official one.

[jerop]

@afrittoli @bobcatfish @sbwsg @vdemeester thank you for the reviews! clarified the tep and incorporated the suggestions into the proposal. please take another look when you have a chance :)

/cc @vinamra28

[bobcatfish]

Looking great to me!! Thanks for all the hard work and back and forth!

/approve

[tekton-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: bobcatfish, lbernick, vdemeester

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:

• teps/OWNERS [bobcatfish,vdemeester]

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

[chmouel]

apologies not being involved earlier but i have added a few comments,

thanks for the effort, i think that would make things much better for our users to have a curated set of official tasks in a repo.

[chmouel]

/lgtm

thanks for addressing my comments!

[afrittoli]

Thanks for the updates @jerop - it looks good!

[jerop]

Thanks for the reviews @vdemeester @chmouel @bobcatfish @afrittoli @lbernick 🙏🏾

There's an extra small follow up pull request in #613, please take a look when you have a chance