chore: process feedback on IL WG (draft) charter

infra-lifecycle-wg/charter/charter.md

@@ -2,45 +2,35 @@
 
 ## Problem Statement
 
-As the cloud-native approach matures, the workloads we run have increasingly complex infrastructure needs. While we all strive to control costs, enforce best practices, and ensure secure configurations, the reality is often fragmented. Today's workloads reside in complex hybrid environments spanning on-premises physical infrastructure, public/private cloud, and Edge/IoT. This heterogeneity creates a significant burden for infrastructure engineers, particularly when it comes to maintaining workloads in production ("Day 10 and beyond"). The complexity for those managing infrastructure is growing rapidly across multiple dimensions.
+As the cloud native approach matures, the workloads we run have increasingly complex infrastructure needs. While we all strive to control costs, enforce best practices, and ensure secure configurations, the reality is often fragmented. Today's workloads reside in complex hybrid environments spanning on-premises physical infrastructure, public/private cloud, and Edge/IoT. This heterogeneity creates a significant burden for infrastructure engineers, particularly when it comes to maintaining workloads in production ("Day 10 and beyond"). The complexity for those managing infrastructure is growing rapidly across multiple dimensions.
 
-Examples:
+Despite the complexity and sophistication required, not enough has been done to meet the challenges. We're seeing significant investment in new open source infrastructure projects both in and out of CNCF but effective tooling for cloud native infrastructure lifecycle management remains elusive. The Platform Engineering movement emphasises treating infrastructure as a product, but there's no standardised approach for managing its lifecycle.
 
-* Control planes handling the lifecycle of infrastructure
+While savvy users are embracing cloud native practices, infrastructure requirements are inherently diverse. However, there's an opportunity to champion technology-agnostic best practices. Infrastructure lifecycle management deserves the same level of attention and planning we dedicate to established areas of cloud native development. This ensures security, resilience, manageability, sustainability, and observability. This working group aims to bridge this critical gap by clarifying what a standardised approach for managing the infrastructure lifecycle looks like and develop best practices.
+
+## Deliverable
+
+Develop a framework for managing the lifecycle of infrastructure in public, private, or hybrid cloud environments based on cloud-native principles. This framework will guide end-users in managing infrastructure to ensure it is secure, resilient, manageable, sustainable, and observable.
+
+* **Start by**, collaborating with relevant Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs), Working Groups (WGs), vendors and end-users to integrate domain-specific expertise.
+* **Next**, develop practical examples and reference architectures to guide end-users in applying the Infrastructure Lifecycle framework effectively across varied infrastructure environments.
+* **Finally**, publish real-world case studies and collect feedback from end-users on their experiences with applying the Infrastructure Lifecycle framework.
+
+The key categories for the framework are:
+* Infrastructure as Code
+  * Development processes
+  * Design and abstractions
+* Control planes
 * State management
 * Disaster recovery
 * Automation
 * Testing
 * Observability
 
-Despite the complexity and sophistication required, not enough has been done to meet the challenges. We're seeing significant investment in new open-source infrastructure projects both in and out of CNCF but effective tooling for cloud-native infrastructure lifecycle management remains elusive. The Platform Engineering movement emphasises treating infrastructure as a product, but there's no standardised approach for managing its lifecycle.
-
-While savvy users are embracing cloud-native practices, infrastructure requirements are inherently diverse. However, there's an opportunity to champion technology-agnostic best practices. Infrastructure lifecycle management deserves the same level of attention and planning we dedicate to established areas of cloud-native development. This ensures security, resilience, manageability, sustainability, and observability. This working group aims to bridge this critical gap by clarifying what a standardised approach for managing the infrastructure lifecycle looks like and develop best practices.
-
-## Goals
+## Long-term vision
+After delivering the framework, we will assess its effectiveness and decide whether a longer-term Working Group or TAG is needed. This approach ensures the framework remains relevant and adaptable to evolving infrastructure management needs.
 
-Focusing on the key stakeholder, cloud and site-reliability engineers responsible for enabling application delivery on cloud infrastructure.
-
-* Conduct vendor and end-user interviews to identify product successes and frustrations.
-* Capture current infrastructure lifecycle management practices and landscape.
-* Provide end-users with ideas and examples for integrating application and infrastructure deployment.
-* Draft a white paper detailing practical implementation patterns and industry trends valuable to end-users.
-* Develop a framework for managing cloud-native infrastructure lifecycle across diverse environments (on-premises, public/private cloud, Edge/IoT), focusing on core principles and best practices.
-* Document a comprehensive set of best practices for cloud-native infrastructure lifecycle management, covering:  
-  * Infrastructure as Code
-    * Development Processes
-    * Design and Abstractions
-  * Control planes
-  * State management
-  * Disaster recovery
-  * Automation
-  * Testing
-  * Observability
-* Create resources and knowledge for the cloud-native community, including:
-  * White papers on patterns and best practices from real-world implementations
-  * Educational materials highlighting industry trends and insights for end-users.
-
-## Non-goals
+## Out of Scope
 
 * This working group is not intended to endorse or promote any specific infrastructure management tools or technologies.
 * This working group won’t develop a new type of standard to infrastructure lifecycle management.
@@ -73,12 +63,10 @@ Without any claim to comprehensiveness:
 
 ## Alignment with TAG App Delivery Charter
 
-The Infrastructure Lifecycle working group tackles the underlying infrastructure abstractions that serve as essential building blocks for platform products, an area addressed by the Platform Working Group. Application delivery is often coupled with infrastructure, think of databases, message queues and runtime environments. Originally, the Platform Working Group focused on clarifying the coordination between application development and infrastructure delivery. While this remains important, the group's focus has evolved to consider platforms as complete products. This broader perspective necessitates a renewed emphasis on the underlying infrastructure abstractions that provide the essential building blocks for these platform offerings, such as disaster recovery, infrastructure lifecycle state management, testability and more. The Infrastructure Lifecycle Working Group will address such topics in this TAG charter.
+The Infrastructure Lifecycle working group tackles the underlying infrastructure abstractions that serve as essential building blocks for platform products, an area addressed by the Platform Working Group. Application delivery is often coupled with infrastructure, think of databases, message queues and runtime environments.
 
-## Alignment with TAG Runtime Charter
+Originally, the Platform Working Group focused on clarifying the coordination between application development and infrastructure delivery. While this remains important, the group's focus has evolved to consider platforms as complete products. This broader perspective necessitates a renewed emphasis on the underlying infrastructure abstractions that provide the essential building blocks for these platform offerings, such as disaster recovery, infrastructure lifecycle state management, testability and more. The Infrastructure Lifecycle Working Group will address such topics in this charter.
 
-We partner with the Runtime TAG to ensure that cloud-native runtime environments provide the fundamental workload execution abstractions and mechanisms needed to integrate with infrastructure lifecycle management tools. This collaboration focuses on guaranteeing that both runtime and infrastructure layers work cohesively to deliver applications effectively.
-
-## Working mode/expected outcome
+## Alignment with TAG Runtime Charter
 
-The Infrastructure Lifecycle Working Group will achieve its goals through regular meetings ([Zoom](https://zoom-lfx.platform.linuxfoundation.org/meeting/96148400770?password=767d45df-c7cf-4400-9239-e789115cc85e&invite=true)), open communication channels ([#wg-infrastructure-lifecycle](https://cloud-native.slack.com/archives/C06USDTN683) on Slack), and collaboration with other TAGs. This will result in a standardised approach for managing the lifecycle of infrastructure in a cloud-native setting, develop a set of comprehensive best practices, and publish valuable resources for the cloud-native community around infrastructure lifecycle management
+We partner with the Runtime TAG to ensure that cloud native runtime environments provide the fundamental workload execution abstractions and mechanisms needed to integrate with infrastructure lifecycle management tools. This collaboration focuses on guaranteeing that both runtime and infrastructure layers work cohesively to deliver applications effectively.