I was thinking this morning on this when I woke up. What we agreed to do is gather requirements. Would this not be more appropriate to handle this as part of SIG1 ?

That would be fine too. Or a cross SIG group of some sort. In K8s we have an official concept of a "working group" which is a cross-SIG, temporary group with a specific dissolution criteria. That would be the appropriate type of group for this problem. We can check the doc to see if we have a similar construct. Or just organize it out of SIG 1 for now and collaborate informally.

I was thinking this morning on this when I woke up. What we agreed to do is gather requirements. Would this not be more appropriate to handle this as part of SIG1 ?

@henderiw I explicitly asked this question on #sig-automation channel on Slack (https://nephio.slack.com/archives/C03MB5GRATS/p1677797179661959) --- to summarize, I was asking if the main goal of Helm support is for (a) CSPs because they love Helm (?), or (b) ease of NF vendor to onboard Nephio; the answer I got was that it is primarily for (b), if so, then I don't think we need to run this through SIG-1 as this work should NOT be user impacting.

Of course, if the subgroup ends up making a recommendation that Nephio should provide support for use case (a) as well, then the subgroup should draft a proposal and enlist SIG-1 for user requirements. But as it stands now, my understanding is that the primary use case is (b)

I'll give this one more day for comments then merge it tomorrow.