docs: RFC to Allow blocking NodePool disruption and consolidation via external health signals

[vaietc]

Fixes #2497

Description

This adds a few proposed paths to control disruption and consolidation actions via external health signals. Currently, this change only includes an initial RFC and does not dive into implementation details yet. As the feedback progresses, I will add more information on specific changes within the code base.

How was this change tested?

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: vaietc / name: Vaibhav Shankar (7364f92, ea53e52)

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: vaietc
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign njtran 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:

• OWNERS

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

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @vaietc. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs 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.

[DerekFrank]

Summarizing notes from working group:

• Would this be simpler as a nodepool level do-not-disrupt?