@shaneutt: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: david-martin, kflynn, rootfs, yuzisun.

Note that only kubernetes members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

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

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

/hold
for review

@aojea a kind reminder...
are there any additional changes needed?

1. Figure out if SIG-MC is a sponsor (#8521 (comment))

@lauralorenz has SIG MC come to a decision in this regard?

I’ve put this on the agenda for our SIG call tomorrow and I’m aiming for a decision by Wednesday.

As I'm looking at this proposal the following bits are remaining:

1. Figure out if SIG-MC is a sponsor ([#8521 (comment)](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/8521#issuecomment-3180239834))

2. All sponsoring SIGs approve the WG creation.

3. Address the comment about LB overlap with wg-serving ([#8521 (comment)](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/8521#discussion_r2286690800))

4. Fill in the liaison.

@soltysh we now have another SIG Network +1.

All that remains is SIG MC's decision. If they decide to join we'll incorporate scope updates to reflect that (the language should remain familiar as its still strongly networking focused and the "egress use case" is already relevant in a multi-cluster scenario).

Let us know if there's anything else you'd like from us, otherwise we'll just plan on checking back in Wednesday. 🖖

Thanks @shaneutt for clarifying the scope. +1 looks good and looking forward to this one.

Let us know if there's anything else you'd like from us, otherwise we'll just plan on checking back in Wednesday. 🖖

There are some more questions I left just now, but correct the major blocker is SIG Multicluster decision. After that I'll poke the steering for final decision.

SIG-Multicluster is willing to sponsor the working group. We’re particularly keen to avoid duplicating effort and learning from past endeavours, for example around ClusterProfile (for cluster identification and exposing cluster properties), or exposing services (including through Gateway API). There are in-progress efforts in the SIG which could be relevant to the WG, for example the placement decision KEP, KEP-5313.

SIG-Multicluster is willing to sponsor the working group. We’re particularly keen to avoid duplicating effort and learning from past endeavours, for example around ClusterProfile (for cluster identification and exposing cluster properties), or exposing services (including through Gateway API). There are in-progress efforts in the SIG which could be relevant to the WG, for example the placement decision KEP, KEP-5313.

Great! We've added multi-cluster as in-scope in the charter and marked you as a stakeholder, thanks for the update! 🎉

@soltysh thanks for the continued review and feedback. At this point we think we have everything covered and are ready to go, please let us know if there's anything else we need to get done first! 🖖