KEP numbering is broken

[tallclair]

Here are the current keps, sorted by filename number and displayed alongside the metadata number:

0000:
  ./0000-kep-template.md  -  0

0001:
  ./0001-kubernetes-enhancement-proposal-process.md  -  1

0002:
  ./sig-cloud-provider/0002-cloud-controller-manager.md  -  2

0003:
  ./sig-cluster-lifecycle/0003-cluster-api.md  -  3

0004:
  ./sig-cluster-lifecycle/0004-bootstrap-checkpointing.md  -  4

0005:
  ./sig-contributor-experience/0005-contributor-site.md  -  5

0006:
  ./0006-apply.md  -  6

0007:
  ./sig-contributor-experience/0007-20180403-community-forum.md  -  0007
  ./sig-network/0007-pod-ready++.md  -  1

0008:
  ./sig-cluster-lifecycle/0008-20180504-kubeadm-config-beta.md  -  draft-20180412
  ./0008-20180430-promote-sysctl-annotations-to-fields.md  -  8
  ./sig-cli/0008-kustomize.md  -  8

0009:
  ./0009-node-heartbeat.md  -  8

0010:
  ./sig-network/0010-20180314-coredns-GA-proposal.md  -  10

0011:
  ./sig-network/0011-ipvs-proxier.md  -  TBD

0012:
  ./sig-network/0012-20180518-coredns-default-proposal.md  -  11

The problems include number collisions & metadata / filename mismatch. Due to these problems, the current numbering only provides friction & confusion. I think the numbers either need to be abandoned, or automation needs to be added to ensure the correct numbering process is followed.

[tallclair]

/sig contributor-experience
/assign calebamiles

[k8s-ci-robot]

@tallclair: GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: calebmiles.

Note that only kubernetes members and repo collaborators can be assigned.

In response to this:

/sig contributor-experience
/assign calebmiles

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/test-infra repository.

[tallclair]

/cc @kubernetes/sig-architecture-bugs

[justaugustus]

+1
Do we think it's enough to just have KEPs organized in folders by SIG and abandon the numbering scheme?

...or perhaps have the numbering be based on the date of the proposal e.g., sig-pm/180625-really-cool-kep.md?

[jdumars]

I'm putting this on the SIG-Architecture agenda for this week. Hopefully we'll get to it.

[bgrant0607]

This came up in the original KEP discussions. I think there was some assumption that an "editor" would assign numbers post-merge.

I am a fan of the date approach.

I think the intent of the numbering is, at a glance, to get some sense of which KEPs are more recent.

[tallclair]

Why not just use the initial PR number? If the goal is to increase number density, we could just have a dedicated repo for KEPs. I think the number was intended to be a UID, so that related KEPs could be referred to unambiguously.