wg-naming: Add workflow for proposing recommendations

Signed-off-by: Stephen Augustus <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Zach Corleissen <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Celeste Horgan <[email protected]>

Author: 3 people

wg-naming/workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+# Recommendations Workflow
+
+This document is a workflow for proposing language recommendations to
+WG Naming.
+
+## Make a proposal
+
+Begin by sending a message outlining the proposed change to
+the [WG Naming mailing list][mailing-list].
+
+While WG Naming also discusses proposals in [#wg-naming][Slack], Slack is a lossy
+communication forum which is much harder to review than the mailing list.
+
+Proposals should include information required to file a WG Naming
+Architecture Decision Record (ADR):
+
+- The recommendation to be made
+- Brief reasoning behind the change
+- The context in which the existing term might be used
+- Alternative recommendations
+- A reasonable guess at the work required to make the change
+
+For more information about the WG Naming ADR, review the [template].
+
+Following a mailing list proposal, contributors can continue discussion both on Slack
+and at WG Naming meetings.
+
+### Filing a recommendation ADR
+
+If the working group's discussion determines that the recommendation is
+reasonable and in line with our [framework] for language evaluation,
+WG Naming leads formalize the recommendation with an ADR.
+
+For more information about the WG Naming ADR, review the [template].
+
+An ADR must include:
+
+- Groups responsible for implementing the change
+- The scope of the change in the Kubernetes project, as well as downstream
+  implications
+
+ADRs must be opened with a `/hold` to give an opportunity to seek approval
+with the governance groups that with be responsible for implementation.
+
+After opening an ADR pull request, WG Naming leads
+should:
+
+- Reply to any mailing list threads about the recommendation with a link to the
+  newly-opened PR, and CC any stakeholder groups
+- Place the recommendation on the next meeting's agenda for review
+
+## Approval
+
+_This approval process is still under discussion, so here we will list out some
+frequently-asked questions from our discussions thus far._
+
+### What if a recommendation requires a KEP?
+
+ADRs should remain on hold until scoped area agrees with the direction.
+
+### What do we do when stakeholders disagree with a recommendation?
+
+Again, do not merge a recommendation until code owners from the scoped area
+agree to it.
+
+### General guidance
+
+- SIG Architecture records decisions to "...not make the mistakes we made in
+  the past"
+- Don’t block recording a recommendation on a plan to remediate all existing
+  uses; once the direction is agreed on by the code/content owners from the
+  scoped area, a recorded recommendation has value in guiding new/future work
+
+### Requirements
+
+- ADR is on hold until approved by scoped areas (e.g., SIG Architecture, SIG
+  Docs)
+- Steering is tagged on the ADR for approval
+- WG Naming lead establishes a Steering review/approval period with a lazy
+  consensus deadline of 3-5 business days
+- WG Naming lead releases the hold and merges ADR
+
+## Implementation
+
+- WG Naming leads record accepted recommendation in a canonical location (TBD)
+  (for example, a style guide)
+- Areas in scope are now responsible for implementation
+
+[framework]: language-evaluation-framework.md
+[mailing-list]: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/kubernetes-wg-naming
+[slack]: https://kubernetes.slack.com/messages/wg-naming
+[template]: ./recommendations/template.md