updated old sig-diagram to latest one

[AmanSarraf]

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #8192

Old diagram

New diagram

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: AmanSarraf
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign nikhita for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @AmanSarraf!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/community 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/community has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @AmanSarraf. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[pohly]

The committees are missing in this proposed replacement.

[aojea]

The committees are missing in this proposed replacement.

/hold

In addition to missing the steering, I think that if we are doing this we should get a wider consensus, there are a bunch of WG that are not present, which ones should be present and what is the rationale to pick one over the others? Beside, the WG depend on a SIG so they should be below the corresponding SIG to make clear this dependency IMHO

[AmanSarraf]

@pohly @aojea thanks for the comments, I'll work on these points as well

[palnabarun]

I would suggest two things:

1. Take https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1rlPkNwZfq_c0tbC25moQXZAjLYnk5U45SesfDaSMVec/edit?usp=sharing as a baseline and the committees.
2. Commit the diagram as a SVG

[palnabarun]

In addition to missing the steering, I think that if we are doing this we should get a wider consensus, there are a bunch of WG that are not present, which ones should be present and what is the rationale to pick one over the others?

@aojea -- I think this was an oversight on the OP's part.

Beside, the WG depend on a SIG so they should be below the corresponding SIG to make clear this dependency IMHO

IMHO, this would make the diagram very complicated. The diagram is only meant to give an overview of what is there and what is not.

[aojea]

The context is that we had this issue recently with s working group owning a repository that revealed there are some misconception about the nature of Working Group that should be ephemeral, I just wanted to avoid people can be misenterpreting the diagram... in addition LTS WG is a complex and controversial topic across the project with only intentions and not clear execution plan, having it on a top of a diagram may also give false impressions

[palnabarun]

The context is that we had this issue recently with s working group owning a repository that revealed there are some misconception about the nature of Working Group that should be ephemeral, I just wanted to avoid people can be misenterpreting the diagram

+1, I think this should be totally emphasized in the WG creation guidelines.

in addition LTS WG is a complex and controversial topic across the project with only intentions and not clear execution plan, having it on a top of a diagram may also give false impressions

I see your point keeping it at the top of the diagram. More and more I think about it, the best idea is to just create a Mermaid diagram using the data in sigs.yaml and not categorize in any way other than by the type of group.

[pohly]

👍 for doing this with a Mermaid diagram based on the source of truth. More work and might not look as nice, but then we re-generating it hopefully will be simpler.

[BenTheElder]

👍 for doing this with a Mermaid diagram based on the source of truth. More work and might not look as nice, but then we re-generating it hopefully will be simpler.

+1 to at least investigate this.

WGs are sponsored by and report to SIGs, we can probably model this with a graph, and we should take care if we do model a graph to be clear about it. Technically governance rolls up to steering with significant delegation of most responsibilities to SIGs and Commitees.

We should be sure to include Security Response Committee, CoCC, and Steering which ere in the old doc and are not in the new one.

[johnbelamaric]

Thanks, it will be great to have this up-to-date. cc @deads2k

[pacoxu]

In https://www.cncf.io/blog/2023/06/14/version-after-version-how-the-open-source-project-kubernetes-releases-its-software/, there is a sig town diagram.

[pacoxu]

several questions about the current proposal

• missing wg-structured-logging
• API-Machinery is using -. Others like data protection is without -
• etcd is the only one without an initial capital letter.(Etcd doesn't look good 🤷)
• Long Term Support (LTS) contains an abbreviation; sig contributor experience does not contain the abbreviation as contribex. In diagram, abbreviation may be better.
• In the old one, vertical sigs have 3 tags: applications\resource management\infrastructures.
• Do we want a new tag for new sig and workgroup which are created within the past year(23-24)
• Security Response Committee and CoCC are not mentioned in https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/mentoring/new-contributor-orientation/nco-slides/%5BSeptember%5D%20New%20Contributor%20Orientation.pdf . See below page of Community Structure.

[pacoxu]

BTW, there are some historical versions among which, the 2017 version did not include committee: https://kubernetes.io/blog/2017/09/introducing-resource-management-working/

• 2017: https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/P9CFdgJK3pdaKkqefpYwoLHkaT--ntJQ0XZT5FbO5TlZtwnvepaO0eCOwxlUYKAsZqZFfOw78_6nEJfY89x3j1w_nHaVqUj7sBTpcAA4g80MoQy5-n3YU7GI8-IFwHUo85cy-rCc from ae507f8

ae507f8 and b306b83 are similar, including committees.