same standard for all proposals

[camilamacedo86]

Description of the change:

• Update the template in order to use the OCP one.
• Update the status for the current one and add the ref links

Motivation for the change:
Closes: #1910

[joelanford]

Thanks @camilamacedo86!

I think we should:

1. Agree what the valid status states are and use those consistently (might need to capitalize or lowercase everything)
2. Document these states in the README with a short description of each.
3. Document expectations in the README about keeping proposals up-to-date and adding links when appropriate (doc links when complete, issues/PRs when in progress, deprecated, or removed, etc).

[camilamacedo86]

Hi @joelanford,

all changes requested are done... could we move forward with as it is and close the Issue?
PS.: we can add any additional info or change in a second PR. WDYT?

[camilamacedo86]

/test e2e-aws-ansible

[joelanford]

If we're going to add doctoc and suggest it in the template, I think we also need:

1. A make target to make it easy to regenerate
2. To ensure that the sanity test fails if doctoc is not properly regenerated.

[camilamacedo86]

Hi @joelanford,

Regards:

If we're going to add doctoc and suggest it in the template, I think we also need:

A make target to make it easy to regenerate
To ensure that the sanity test fails if doctoc is not properly regenerated.

It is a great idea. I tracked it in #1941 and assigned it to me. I will do it asap :-) but I do not think that it is a blocker for this PR WDYT?

[joelanford]

I'd rather not add the doctoc without the tooling to generate it, since we'd be asking anyone contributing to documents to figure the tooling out and manually fix things in the meantime.

Can we remove the doctoc from this PR and add it when we add the tooling?

[camilamacedo86]

Hi @joelanford,

All files are updated and the target was added in the makefile. However, to add in the sanity, will be required do a PR for ci prow repo first for the image used here have the nodejs installed (yum install nodejs).

IMHO: The index is very helpful to check the docs and in fact, we are using doctoc in few of them already and has other ones where the index was added manually which makes very hard keep them maintained. Just have the possibility to update and add them automatically in POV is enough for now. Also, all indexes have a comment with the link for the lib used and the info that they are generated automatically and all is very easy and intuitive to get working.

Please, feel free to review and let me know if we can move forward with or if you would like to change something.

[joelanford]

We should discuss as a team, but I wonder if we should start following the openshift/enhancement template for all SDK proposals, and make that the standard going forward? We will likely be using that openshift/enhancement template for a large portion of our future proposals anyway, so perhaps its best if we use it across the board for consistency.

[camilamacedo86]

I really agree with. really makes sense we try to adopt/use the openshift template.

[camilamacedo86]

Hi @joelanford,

I think it is ok to be merged now and it shows enough for we close #1910.

We could here update the current status of the repo proposals
Add the OCP template to be used for the next ones
Perform few adjust in the old ones for them have the same old layout applied

WDYT?

[joelanford]

One final comment about the TLS proposal status. LGTM once that's addressed. Great job @camilamacedo86!

[camilamacedo86]

/test e2e-aws-ansible