Draft requirements

[todaywasawesome]

Begin drafting the requirements for being conformance.

Issues that have already been mentioned:

• Timeboxing
• Protecting UI
• Participation (maintainers)
• API conformance
• CNCF membership

Other notes in issue #3

[todaywasawesome]

Notes from Oct 7th meeting.

• @alexec We do want people to be able to create their own UIs for Argo Workflows.
• @hblixt Other projects just require shipping the default UI alongside the new UI.
• @alexec It would be good to get the UI to its own product at some point. The pluggability could help grow the ecosystems.
• @hblixt Intuit will push hard for the UI to be available.
• @wanghong230 UI is a competitive advantage, so we want to make sure it stays present.

Adopted by committee: Require UI to be shipped intact with conformant offerings. Changes to UI should be limited to extensions API.

Question: Test-suite

• @alexec Argo Workflows e2e testing should be a good backbone, similar to Argo CD. Tests API etc. Doesn't include much UI testing.
• @wanghong230 Can we investigate SonoBouy? It's being used for Kubernetes conformance test. Good extensibility. Whatever we create should work for the project.

Adopted by committee: Use e2e tests in projects as basis, so that we're not creating double the work.

Question: Participation

• @hblixt No other conformance project has this requirement. We may have push back from the governance board if we set the bar too high. If the bar is too high we also encourage forks. We already have the most maintainers of a CNCF project. I'm gravitating towards is 2 members. We currently don't record members, it's in the Github team. We should start tracking this.
• @hblixt My worry of requiring "approver" or above is it's a very high bar and it pushes people to get a lot more maintainers.
• @wanghong230 I push for 2-3 maintainers (meaning reviewers and up).
• @hblixt What I saw at OpenStack is people just poach to get influence on project. They pay crazy money just to get an influence on the project.
• @wanghong230 If it's membership then I would say 3
• @todaywasawesome I'd propose 2 members or 1 maintainer.

To be discussed further...

Question: Are we missing anything?

• @hblixt I think we're already beyond what other people are doing
• @wanghong230 I'm still a bit skeptical of the outcome, Kubernetes is getting bigger... How much will people care about it in the end?

To be discussed further...