Update wgs.yaml

[juliusvonkohout]

@andreyvelich @kimwnasptd
based on #871 (comment)

[google-oss-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

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

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

Details

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

[andreyvelich]

But we should have a charter/vote to establish this working group defined, as we started in: #837
Since CNCF will review our governance structure for graduation, we should keep our working group names consistent everywhere.

cc @kubeflow/kubeflow-steering-committee

[juliusvonkohout]

But we should have a charter/vote to establish this working group defined, as we started in: #837 Since CNCF will review our governance structure for graduation, we should keep our working group names consistent everywhere.

cc @kubeflow/kubeflow-steering-committee

It is more renaming the existing one. So should we vote here ? @kubeflow/kubeflow-steering-committee

[andreyvelich]

It is more renaming the existing one. So should we vote here ?

We can definitely discuss it with KSC, but I suggest that we rename/create/change WGs after we graduate with CNCF.
We need to make sure that our WG names are consistent, since CNCF will review it: https://www.kubeflow.org/docs/about/community/#kubeflow-working-groups

As of now, we have 6 WGs + WG ML Experience + WG Data.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[juliusvonkohout]

not stale

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[juliusvonkohout]

@andreyvelich may we merge it now ?

[andreyvelich]

We still have WG Manifests in our community repo: https://github.com/kubeflow/community/tree/master/wg-manifests
cc @kimwnasptd @kubeflow/kubeflow-steering-committee

[juliusvonkohout]

So shall i rename https://github.com/kubeflow/community/tree/master/wg-manifests in the same PR ?

[andreyvelich]

So shall i rename https://github.com/kubeflow/community/tree/master/wg-manifests in the same PR ?

Let's talk with @chasecadet @franciscojavierarceo @thesuperzapper this week, what should we do with the WGs.

[chasecadet]

My vote is we stick to technical purity and just call it the 'Kubeflow Platform.' for the team description.

'AI' is redundant buzzword-chasing: Calling it the 'Kubeflow AI platform' is like saying 'ATM machine.' Kubeflow is intrinsically an ML platform, and we shouldn't sacrifice accuracy just to chase a marketing trend. If folks don't know it's for AI, they need to do a quick read on what Kubeflow is first anyway.

'Reference' is too clunky: 'Kubeflow reference platform' is us trying to fit too much data into one sentence. Yes, Kubeflow is an ecosystem of tools, but we've integrated them into a platform for a cohesive story.

Think of it like Vertex. Nobody calls it the 'Vertex reference platform.' Users can bolt on whatever integrations they want to enhance it, but at its core, it remains Vertex. If someone wants to use our setup as a baseline 'Kubeflow core' and build on top of it or around it, they absolutely can.