Add #karpenter-gcp Slack channel

[dm3ch]

Purpose

Add a new #karpenter-gcp channel for the karpenter-provider-gcp project — a Google Cloud Karpenter Provider that enables Karpenter-based node provisioning on GCP.

Why a separate channel

The existing #karpenter channel is focused on the upstream Karpenter project (AWS). A dedicated #karpenter-gcp channel will give GCP-specific Karpenter users and contributors a focused space to discuss:

• GCP-specific node provisioning and configuration
• Issues and development of the karpenter-provider-gcp project
• Community coordination around the GCP provider

Supporting resources

• Project repository: https://github.com/cloudpilot-ai/karpenter-provider-gcp
• The project is open source and Kubernetes-ecosystem focused

Channel details

• Channel name: karpenter-gcp (12 characters, within 21-character limit)
• Visibility: Public

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @dm3ch!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/community 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/community has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @dm3ch. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work.

Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dm3ch, thameezb
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign jeefy for approval. For more information see the 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:

• communication/slack-config/OWNERS

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

[jberkus]

/ok-to-test

[hakman]

@dm3ch slightly related to this, a few questions regarding karpenter-provider-gcp:

• is CloudPilot AI planning to donate the project to Kubernetes or CNCF?
• is the project focused only on GKE, or is there a plan to make it more generic, to support self-managed clusters?

[jwcesign]

is CloudPilot AI planning to donate the project to Kubernetes or CNCF?

Sure, we'll do it when we have more time, but it's a lengthy process.

s the project focused only on GKE, or is there a plan to make it more generic, to support self-managed clusters?

GKE or self-managed clusters on Google Cloud Platform

[dm3ch]

• is CloudPilot AI planning to donate the project to Kubernetes or CNCF?

BTW, I've seen the public doc regarding CNCF adoption process. But is there such a guideline for Kubernetes?

[hakman]

BTW, I've seen the public doc regarding CNCF adoption process. But is there such a guideline for Kubernetes?

For sure, here it is. I would say it's much simpler, but that's just me. @jackfrancis or @gjtempleton may be able to help.
https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/main/github-management/kubernetes-repositories.md

Short comparison via Claude:

Dimension	Kubernetes Org	CNCF
What you're donating	A single repository	An entire project
Governing body	SIG + GitHub Admin team	Technical Oversight Committee (TOC)
Sponsorship required	Yes — a SIG must adopt you	No — you apply directly
Maturity levels	Binary: kubernetes/ or kubernetes-sigs/	4 stages: Sandbox → Incubating → Graduated → Archived
Entry requirements	CLA compliance, Apache 2.0 license, active SIG members as OWNERS	Varies by level; Sandbox is lightweight, Incubation requires 3+ production adopters
Production use bar	None	Required at Incubation and above
Security audit	Not required	Required for Graduation
Multi-org committers	Not required	Required for Graduation
Timeline	~72 hours once requirements met	Sandbox: reviewed every 2 months; Incubation/Graduation: 3+ months
You retain governance?	No — merges into SIG governance	Yes — existing governance and maintainers remain
Copyright transfer	Yes, to CNCF/Linux Foundation	Yes, to CNCF/Linux Foundation
Best for	SIG-adjacent tooling, libraries, extensions	Independent projects seeking broad ecosystem recognition

[dm3ch]

@hakman Ok, TY for explaining.

By the way what is our chances to get a Slack channel in Kuberntes slack space for coordination now, when we are not yet started proccess of adoption?

[dm3ch]

@jeefy @mrbobbytables Hey guys, friendly reminder about this PR. Have you got a chance to look at it?

[jberkus]

@dm3ch this is a weird one, because each of the Karpenter providers is a separate project belonging to a separate entity. Approving this one request isn't an issue in itself, but it would be making implied policy that each karpenter provider is entitled to a channel.

As such, I need to get the rest of the slack admins to discuss it, so it'll be on hold for a little bit.

[jberkus]

/hold

For slack-admins discussion.

[dm3ch]

@dm3ch this is a weird one, because each of the Karpenter providers is a separate project belonging to a separate entity. Approving this one request isn't an issue in itself, but it would be making implied policy that each karpenter provider is entitled to a channel.

As such, I need to get the rest of the slack admins to discuss it, so it'll be on hold for a little bit.

Got your point. TY for explanation.

Regarding other admins approval - should we mention them in this PR or kubernetes have some other place for such discussions?