Spotlight on SIG Architecture: Enhancements

This is the fourth interview of a SIG Architecture Spotlight series that will cover the different subprojects, and we will be covering SIG Architecture: Enhancements.

In this SIG Architecture spotlight we talked with Kirsten Garrison, lead of the Enhancements subproject.

The Enhancements subproject

Frederico (FSM): Hi Kirsten, very happy to have the opportunity to talk about the Enhancements subproject. Let's start with some quick information about yourself and your role.

Kirsten Garrison (KG): I’m a lead of the Enhancements subproject of SIG-Architecture and currently work at Google. I first got involved by contributing to the service-catalog project with the help of Carolyn Van Slyck. With time, I joined the Release team, eventually becoming the Enhancements Lead and a Release Lead shadow. While on the release team, I worked on some ideas to make the process better for the SIGs and Enhancements team (the opt-in process) based on my team’s experiences. Eventually, I started attending Subproject meetings and contributing to the Subproject’s work.

FSM: You mentioned the Enhancements subproject: how would you describe its main goals and areas of intervention?

KG: The Enhancements Subproject primarily concerns itself with the Kubernetes Enhancement Proposal (KEP for short)—the "design" documents required for all features and significant changes to the Kubernetes project.

The KEP and its impact

FSM: The improvement of the KEP process was (and is) one in which SIG Architecture was heavily involved. Could you explain the process to those that aren’t aware of it?

KG: Every release, the SIGs let the Release Team know which features they intend to work on to be put into the release. As mentioned above, the prerequisite for these changes is a KEP - a standardized design document that all authors must fill out and approve in the first weeks of the release cycle. Most features will move through 3 phases: alpha, beta and finally GA so approving a feature represents a significant commitment for the SIG.

The KEP serves as the full source of truth of a feature. The KEP template has different requirements based on what stage a feature is in, but it generally requires a detailed discussion of the design and the impact as well as providing artifacts of stability and performance. The KEP takes quite a bit of iterative work between authors, SIG reviewers, api review team and the Production Readiness Review team¹ before it is approved. Each set of reviewers is looking to make sure that the proposal meets their standards in order to have a stable and performant Kubernetes release. Only after all approvals are secured, can an author go forth and merge their feature in the Kubernetes code base.

FSM: I see, quite a bit of additional structure was added. Looking back, what were the most significant improvements of that approach?

KG: In general, I think that the improvements with the most impact had to do with focusing on the core intent of the KEP. KEPs exist not just to memorialize designs, but provide a structured way to discuss and come to an agreement about different facets of the change. At the core of the KEP process is communication and consideration.

To that end, some of the significant changes revolve around a more detailed and accessible KEP template. A significant amount of work was put in over time to get the k/enhancements repo into its current form -- a directory structure organized by SIG with the contours of the modern KEP template (with Proposal/Motivation/Design Details subsections). We might take that basic structure for granted today, but it really represents the work of many people trying to get the foundation of this process in place over time.

As Kubernetes matures, we’ve needed to think about more than just the end goal of getting a single feature merged. We need to think about things like: stability, performance, setting and meeting user expectations. And as we’ve thought about those things the template has grown more detailed. The addition of the Production Readiness Review was major as well as the enhanced testing requirements (varying at different stages of a KEP’s lifecycle).

Current areas of focus

FSM: Speaking of maturing, we’ve recently released Kubernetes v1.31, and work on v1.32 has started. Are there any areas that the Enhancements sub-project is currently addressing that might change the way things are done?

KG: We’re currently working on two things:

1. Creating a Process KEP template. Sometimes people want to harness the KEP process for significant changes that are more process oriented rather than feature oriented. We want to support this because memorializing changes is important and giving people a better tool to do so will only encourage more discussion and transparency.
2. KEP versioning. While our template changes aim to be as non-disruptive as possible, we believe that it will be easier to track and communicate those changes to the community better with a versioned KEP template and the policies that go alongside such versioning.

Both features will take some time to get right and fully roll out (just like a KEP feature) but we believe that they will both provide improvements that will benefit the community at large.

FSM: You mentioned improvements: I remember when project boards for Enhancement tracking were introduced in recent releases, to great effect and unanimous applause from release team members. Was this a particular area of focus for the subproject?

KG: The Subproject provided support to the Release Team’s Enhancement team in the migration away from using the spreadsheet to a project board. The collection and tracking of enhancements has always been a logistical challenge. During my time on the Release Team, I helped with the transition to an opt-in system of enhancements, whereby the SIG leads "opt-in" KEPs for release tracking. This helped to enhance communication between authors and SIGs before any significant work was undertaken on a KEP and removed toil from the Enhancements team. This change used the existing tools to avoid introducing too many changes at once to the community. Later, the Release Team approached the Subproject with an idea of leveraging GitHub Project Boards to further improve the collection process. This was to be a move away from the use of complicated spreadsheets to using repo-native labels on k/enhancement issues and project boards.

FSM: That surely adds an impact on simplifying the workflow...

KG: Removing sources of friction and promoting clear communication is very important to the Enhancements Subproject. At the same time, it’s important to give careful consideration to decisions that impact the community as a whole. We want to make sure that changes are balanced to give an upside and while not causing any regressions and pain in the rollout. We supported the Release Team in ideation as well as through the actual migration to the project boards. It was a great success and exciting to see the team make high impact changes that helped everyone involved in the KEP process!

Getting involved

FSM: For those reading that might be curious and interested in helping, how would you describe the required skills for participating in the sub-project?

KG: Familiarity with KEPs either via experience or taking time to look through the kubernetes/enhancements repo is helpful. All are welcome to participate if interested - we can take it from there.

FSM: Excellent! Many thanks for your time and insight -- any final comments you would like to share with our readers?

KG: The Enhancements process is one of the most important parts of Kubernetes and requires enormous amounts of coordination and collaboration of people and teams across the project to make it successful. I’m thankful and inspired by everyone’s continued hard work and dedication to making the project great. This is truly a wonderful community.

• ←Previous
• Next→