Add new template for proposals and update the old ones with their current status.

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

Author: camilamacedo86

doc/proposals/TEMPLATE.md

@@ -1,30 +1,229 @@
-# <Title of Proposal> 
+---
+title: Neat-proposals-Idea
+authors:
+  - "@janedoe"
+reviewers:
+  - TBD
+  - "@alicedoe"
+approvers:
+  - TBD
+  - "@oscardoe"
+creation-date: yyyy-mm-dd
+last-updated: yyyy-mm-dd
+status: provisional|implementable|implemented|deferred|rejected|withdrawn|replaced
+see-also:
+  - "/proposals/this-other-neat-thing.md"  
+replaces:
+  - "/proposals/that-less-than-great-idea.md"
+superseded-by:
+  - "/proposals/our-past-effort.md"
+---
 
-Implementation Owner: < github username >
-Status: Draft
+# Title
 
-[Background](#Background)
-[Goals](#Goals)
-[Design overview](#Design_overview)
-[User facing usage](#User_facing_usage)
-[Observations and open questions](#Observations_and_open_questions)
+This is the title of the enhancement. Keep it simple and descriptive. A good
+title can help communicate what the enhancement is and should be considered as
+part of any review.
 
-## Background
+To get started with this template:
+1. **Pick a domain.** Find the appropriate domain to discuss your enhancement.
+1. **Make a copy of this template.** Copy this template into the directory for
+   the domain.
+1. **Fill out the "overview" sections.** This includes the Summary and
+   Motivation sections. These should be easy and explain why the community
+   should desire this enhancement.
+1. **Create a PR.** Assign it to folks with expertise in that domain to help
+   sponsor the process.
+1. **Merge at each milestone.** Merge when the design is able to transition to a
+   new status (provisional, implementable, implemented, etc.). View anything
+   marked as `provisional` as an idea worth exploring in the future, but not
+   accepted as ready to execute. Anything marked as `implementable` should
+   clearly communicate how an enhancement is coded up and delivered. If an
+   enhancement describes a new deployment topology or platform, include a
+   logical description for the deployment, and how it handles the unique aspects
+   of the platform. Aim for single topic PRs to keep discussions focused. If you
+   disagree with what is already in a document, open a new PR with suggested
+   changes.
 
-< A paragraph or two on the background problem or missing feature on why this is needed. >
+The `Metadata` section above is intended to support the creation of tooling
+around the enhancement process.
+
+## Release Signoff Checklist
+
+- \[ \] Enhancement is `implementable`
+- \[ \] Design details are appropriately documented from clear requirements
+- \[ \] Test plan is defined
+- \[ \] Graduation criteria for dev preview, tech preview, GA
+- \[ \] User-facing documentation is created in [operator-sdk/doc][operator-sdk-doc]
+
+## Open Questions (optional)
+
+This is where to call out areas of the design that require closure before deciding
+to implement the design.  For instance, 
+ > 1. This requires exposing previously private resources which contain sensitive
+  information.  Can we do this? 
+
+## Summary
+
+The `Summary` section is incredibly important for producing high quality
+user-focused documentation such as release notes or a development roadmap. It
+should be possible to collect this information before implementation begins in
+order to avoid requiring implementors to split their attention between writing
+release notes and implementing the feature itself. 
+
+A good summary is probably at least a paragraph in length.
+
+## Motivation
+
+This section is for explicitly listing the motivation, goals and non-goals of
+this proposal. Describe why the change is important and the benefits to users.
 
 ## Goals
 
-< Short list of goals of this proposal >
+List the specific goals of the proposal. How will we know that this has succeeded?
+
+### Non-Goals
+
+What is out of scope for this proposal? Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion
+and make progress.
+
+## Proposal
+
+This is where we get down to the nitty gritty of what the proposal actually is.
+
+### User Stories (optional)
+
+Detail the things that people will be able to do if this is implemented.
+Include as much detail as possible so that people can understand the "how" of
+the system. The goal here is to make this feel real for users without getting
+bogged down.
+
+#### Story 1
+
+#### Story 2
+
+### Implementation Details/Notes/Constraints (optional)
+
+What are the caveats to the implementation? What are some important details that
+didn't come across above. Go in to as much detail as necessary here. This might
+be a good place to talk about core concepts and how they releate.
+
+### Risks and Mitigations
+
+What are the risks of this proposal and how do we mitigate. Think broadly. For
+example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger OKD
+ecosystem.
+
+How will security be reviewed and by whom? How will UX be reviewed and by whom?
+
+Consider including folks that also work outside your immediate sub-project.
+
+## Design Details
+
+### Test Plan
+
+**Note:** *Section not required until targeted at a release.*
+
+Consider the following in developing a test plan for this enhancement:
+- Will there be e2e and integration tests, in addition to unit tests?
+- How will it be tested in isolation vs with other components?
+
+No need to outline all of the test cases, just the general strategy. Anything
+that would count as tricky in the implementation and anything particularly
+challenging to test should be called out.
+
+All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage
+expectations).
+
+### Graduation Criteria
+
+**Note:** *Section not required until targeted at a release.*
+
+Define graduation milestones.
+
+These may be defined in terms of API maturity, or as something else. Initial proposal
+should keep this high-level with a focus on what signals will be looked at to
+determine graduation.
+
+Consider the following in developing the graduation criteria for this
+enhancement:
+- Maturity levels - `Dev Preview`, `Tech Preview`, `GA`
+- Deprecation
+
+Clearly define what graduation means.
+
+#### Examples
+
+These are generalized examples to consider, in addition to the aforementioned maturity levels(`Dev Preview`, `Tech Preview`, `GA`).
+
+##### Dev Preview -> Tech Preview
+
+- Ability to utilize the enhancement end to end
+- End user documentation, relative API stability
+- Sufficient test coverage
+- Gather feedback from users rather than just developers
+
+##### Tech Preview -> GA 
+
+- More testing (upgrade, downgrade, scale)
+- Sufficient time for feedback
+- Available by default
+
+**For non-optional features moving to GA, the graduation criteria must include
+end to end tests.**
+
+##### Removing a deprecated feature
+
+- Announce deprecation and support policy of the existing feature
+- Deprecate the feature
+
+### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy
+
+If applicable, how will the component be upgraded and downgraded? Make sure this
+is in the test plan.
+
+Consider the following in developing an upgrade/downgrade strategy for this
+enhancement:
+- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
+  cluster required to make on upgrade in order to keep previous behavior?
+- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
+  cluster required to make on upgrade in order to make use of the enhancement?
+
+### Version Skew Strategy
+
+How will the component handle version skew with other components?
+What are the guarantees? Make sure this is in the test plan.
+
+Consider the following in developing a version skew strategy for this
+enhancement:
+- During an upgrade, we will always have skew among components, how will this impact your work?
+- Does this enhancement involve coordinating behavior in the control plane and
+  in the kubelet? How does an n-2 kubelet without this feature available behave
+  when this feature is used?
+- Will any other components on the node change? For example, changes to CSI, CRI
+  or CNI may require updating that component before the kubelet.
+
+## Implementation History
+
+Major milestones in the life cycle of a proposal should be tracked in `Implementation
+History`.
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+The idea is to find the best form of an argument why this enhancement should _not_ be implemented.
 
-## Design overview
+## Alternatives
 
-< Design of how the proposal architecture implementation would look like. >
+Similar to the `Drawbacks` section the `Alternatives` section is used to
+highlight and record other possible approaches to delivering the value proposed
+by an enhancement.
 
-## User facing usage (if needed)
+## Infrastructure Needed (optional)
 
-< If the user needs to interact with this feature, how would it look like from their point of view. >
+Use this section if you need things from the project. Examples include a new
+subproject, repos requested, github details, and/or testing infrastructure.
 
-## Observations and open questions
+Listing these here allows the community to get the process for these resources
+started right away.
 
-< Any open questions that need solving or implementation details should go here. These can be removed at the end of the proposal if they are resolved. >
+[operator-sdk-doc]:  ../../doc

doc/proposals/ansible-operator-status.md

@@ -1,9 +1,13 @@
 # Ansible-based Operator Status Proposal for Operator SDK
 
-> Status: **completed**
+> Status: **implemented**
 > 
 > The operator can surface basic information from the Ansible code in a generic fashion - it can set the conditions and it can surface a failure message if the run failed. See documentation in the Developer Guide: [Custom Resource Status Management](../ansible/dev/developer_guide.md#custom-resource-status-management).
 
+- [Problem](#problem)
+- [Proposal](#proposal)
+- [Complications / Further Discussion](#complications--further-discussion)
+
 ## Problem
 
 There is currently no way to intentionally surface information to the status object from Ansible. If users want to surface custom information in their Custom Resource’s status field, they would need to change the Go code for the operator.

doc/proposals/ansible-operator-testing.md

@@ -1,9 +1,15 @@
 # Ansible based-Operator Testing Proposal for Operator SDK
 
-> Status: **completed**
+> Status: **implemented**
 > 
 > Ansible-based operators can be tested with Molecule. Please see the testing documentation: [Testing Ansible Operators with Molecule](../ansible/dev/testing_guide.md).
 
+- [Background](#background)
+- [Goals](#goals)
+- [Non-Goals](#non-goals)
+- [Solution](#solution)
+- [Discussion / Further Investigation](#discussion--further-investigation)
+
 ## Background
 All operators should fit into the e2e testing framework used by operator-sdk, including Ansible Operator.
 

doc/proposals/ansible-operator.md

@@ -1,8 +1,14 @@
 # Ansible based-Operator Proposal for Operator SDK
 
-> Status: **completed**
+> Status: **implemented**
 > 
-> This proposal has been completed, please see the [Ansible User Guide for Operator SDK](../ansible/user-guide.md) for current documentation.
+> This proposal has been implemented, please see the [Ansible User Guide for Operator SDK](../ansible/user-guide.md) for current documentation.
+
+- [Background](#background)
+- [Goals](#goals)
+- [New Operator Type](#new-operator-type)
+- [Package Structure](#package-structure)
+- [Commands](#commands)
 
 ## Background
 

doc/proposals/cli-ux-phase1.md

@@ -2,17 +2,25 @@
 
 Implementation Owner: @joelanford
 
-Status: Draft
-
-[Background](#Background)
-
-[Goal](#Goal)
-
-[Use cases](#Use_cases)
-
-[Proposed CLI commands](#Proposed_CLI_commands)
-
-[References](#References)
+> Status: **implementable**
+
+- [Background](#background)
+- [Goal](#goal)
+- [Use cases](#use-cases)
+- [Proposed CLI commands](#proposed-cli-commands)
+  - [`operator-sdk alpha`](#operator-sdk-alpha)
+  - [`operator-sdk alpha olm init`](#operator-sdk-alpha-olm-init)
+    - [OCP/OKD](#ocpokd)
+    - [Upstream Kubernetes](#upstream-kubernetes)
+    - [Flags for `olm init`](#flags-for-olm-init)
+  - [`operator-sdk alpha olm up`](#operator-sdk-alpha-olm-up)
+    - [Prerequisites](#prerequisites)
+    - [Flags for `olm up`](#flags-for-olm-up)
+    - [Resources](#resources)
+- [References](#references)
+  - [Operator SDK](#operator-sdk)
+  - [Operator Registry](#operator-registry)
+  - [Operator Lifecycle Manager](#operator-lifecycle-manager)
 
 ## Background
 

doc/proposals/helm-operator.md

@@ -1,6 +1,23 @@
 # Helm based-Operator Proposal for Operator SDK
 
-## Background
+> Status: **implemented**
+> 
+> See user documentation in the [User Guide][helm_user_guide] and developer documentation in the [Developer Guide][helm_dev_guide].
+
+- [Background](#background)
+- [Goals](#goals)
+- [New Operator Type](#new-operator-type)
+- [Package Structure](#package-structure)
+- [Commands](#commands)
+  - [New](#new)
+  - [Add](#add)
+  - [Up](#up)
+  - [Build](#build)
+  - [Test](#test)
+- [Base Image](#base-image)
+- [Observations and open questions](#observations-and-open-questions)
+
+### Background
 
 As was mentioned in the [Ansible Operator Proposal](./ansible-operator.md), not everyone is a golang developer, so the SDK needs to support other types of operators to gain adoption across a wider community of users.
 
@@ -145,3 +162,6 @@ The base image repository will be `quay.io/water-hole/helm-operator`.
 * There will be a large amount of overlap in the `operator-sdk` commands for the Ansible and Helm operators. We should take care to extract the reusable features of the Ansible operator commands into a shared library, usable by both Helm and Ansible commands.
 
 * There is a moderate amount of complexity already related to how operator types are handled between the `go` and `ansible` types. With the addition of a third type, there may need to be a larger design proposal for operator types. For example, do we need to define an `Operator` interface that each of the operator types can implement for flag verification, scaffolding, project detection, etc.?
+
+[helm_user_guide]:./../helm/user-guide.md
+[helm_dev_guide]:./../helm/dev/developer_guide.md

doc/proposals/improved-scorecard-config.md

@@ -1,12 +1,14 @@
 # Improved Scorecard Config Proposal for Operator SDK
 
 Implementation Owner: AlexNPavel
-Status: Draft
-
-- [Background](#Background)
-- [Goals](#Goals)
-- [Design overview](#Design-overview)
-- [User facing usage](#User-facing-usage)
+> Status: **implemented**
+>
+> See the [scorecard documentation](../test-framework/scorecard.md) for up-to-date information.
+
+- [Background](#background)
+- [Goals](#goals)
+- [Design overview](#design-overview)
+- [User facing usage](#user-facing-usage)
 
 ## Background