PROCESS CHANGE: Merge Client and Functions WG together

[dsimansk]

Things to include with your process proposal (delete this text):

• Expected benefits. Who gains the benefits? Why will they benefit?

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.

• Expected costs. Who bears the costs? How heavy are they?

Less WG calls, in addition joint WG update.

• Timeframe for implementation / rollout.

Week to sync WG calls and make announcements on channels, mailing list etc.

• Are you willing to drive the process, or is this a request for help?

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

[dsimansk]

Functions & Client Working Group

Vote with thump up for this proposed name

[dsimansk]

Functions & CLI Working Group

Update:
A plural form of CLIs might be a better options

Functions & CLI Working Group
Explained here: #1554 (comment)

Vote with thump up for this proposed name

[dsimansk]

CLI Working Group

Vote with thump up for this proposed name

[cardil]

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.

[dprotaso]

+1 from me

[lkingland]

Looking forward to how this will help align our upcoming UX improvements!

[dsimansk]

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

[dsimansk]

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".

[psschwei]

+1 for merging, no opinion on name

[davidhadas]

+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.

[rhuss]

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:

Here we might have still the issue that we refer to the Knative client as "Knative CLI". This documentation than also would need to be restructured, too.

[nainaz]

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.

[salaboy]

I agree with @rhuss Functions has become a fundamental part of the project.

[aliok]

+1 on merging from me.

I also like the name Functions better.

[aliok]

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:

• Merge Client WG and Functions WG under "Functions & CLIs Working Group"

Summer is approaching, and we probably won't be able to vote this in a SC/TOC meeting (low meeting participation in summer).

[aliok]

cc @knative/steering-committee @knative/technical-oversight-committee @knative/client-wg-leads @knative/functions-wg-leads

[aliok]

+1 on "Merge Client WG and Functions WG under "Functions & CLIs Working Group"

[rhuss]

+1 for merging both WG, "Function & CLI Working Group" sound good to me (I would avoid the plural-s)

[dprotaso]

+1 on merging

[nainaz]

+1 for merging both WG.
Name proposal: Function & CLI Working Group

[evankanderson]

I support a merge, but I think this is the TOC's call. (It could be done async)

[psschwei]

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"...

[dprotaso]

"Function & Client Working Group" might cover the basis that there could be many CLIs ?

I don't mind what we go with.

[psschwei]

Same here, I'm ok with whatever the WG decides

[nrrso]

+1 for merging both WG.

Preferred Name: Function & CLI Working Group

[aliok]

@dsimansk Is there any blocker for this merger?