add Kubernetes AI Conformance working group

[fedebongio]

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

This PR is a follow up on the email sent 2 weeks ago on WG creation, see https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/g/dev/c/u6I_mCRC4lE

cc @janetkuo

[cblecker]

/hold
for review

[fedebongio]

cc @mfahlandt

[nimbinatus]

I believe this should list the same SIGs that are listed as stakeholders in your charter.

[mfahlandt]

+1

[BenTheElder]

IMHO this should also have SIG testing given that a suite of tests is in scope.

cc @aojea @pohly

As a TL I am +1 to sponsor the WG.

[fedebongio]

Okay, so does everybody agree to list only: SIG Architecture and SIG Testing for now? Please let me know so I can make the change and get this merged asap to start meeting

[pohly]

+1 as SIG Testing TL.

[dims]

+1 as SIG Arch Chair

[janetkuo]

cc SIG Arch chairs @derekwaynecarr @dims @johnbelamaric for approval

[dims]

@janetkuo let me paste @derekwaynecarr 's question from doc here

Derek Carr
Derek Carr
5:25 PM Jul 7
I apologize for being out of office during the meeting, but it looks like this proposal has evolved from an earlier form I had seen for networking conformance/benchmarking.

I want to understand more, but my general concern is that the document linked is larger in scope and its not clear how a single vendor may or may not be able to assert conformance depending on what it prereqs in its current form (particularly if it requires multiple vendors to reach a solution).  For example, the availability of a production DRA driver does not exist at this time from any GPU vendor (let alone a Kubernetes distribution).

Isn't this inverting the process?  Should a WG be formed to explore what should or should not be done (including if conformance is needed) and then allow vendors (hardware and software) to participate to appropriately determine if the requirements as written could be fulfilled?

[franciscojavierarceo]

I'd like to advocate for an explicit nomination process for the leads of AI Conformance.

[mrunalp]

In which repository will this be maintained? Who will be the maintainers of the conformance specification?

[BenTheElder]

This is an open question from the SIG arch meeting.

IIRC there was loose agreement to follow up in the WG to discuss options for how best to implement and host this and present them to the relevant groups (SIG Arch, SIG Testing, CNCF, ....).

In think this should be clarified, it is undetermined if there will be binary artifacts in the kubernetes organization. They may be in the CNCF, or the workgroup might determine that there's an alternate approach.

[andreyvelich]

Thank you for this @fedebongio!

[fedebongio]

/retest

[soltysh]

With all the bits in this
/lgtm (from steering)

/label tide/merge-method-squash

[soltysh]

Looks like one more verify failure 😉

[pohly]

👍 (steering and future liaison)

[mfahlandt]

@fedebongio can you rerun the generator, i can't pr into your branch GitHub does not find it ^^

[derekwaynecarr]

Apologies for delay, I have been traveling.

/lgtm

+1 SIG Arch Chair

[BenTheElder]

+1 (steering)
/lgtm
/approve

[justaugustus]

+1 (Steering)
/lgtm
/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: BenTheElder, fedebongio, franciscojavierarceo, janetkuo, justaugustus, mfahlandt, saschagrunert, soltysh

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [BenTheElder,justaugustus,mfahlandt,saschagrunert,soltysh]

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

[soltysh]

we have sufficient steering 👍 -ing
/hold cancel