Archive this module

[RothAndrew]

See #122

[RothAndrew]

I requested reviews from the people that I believe are stakeholders in this module, either from a maintenance side or a consumption side. Please let me know if you think there's anyone else who should weigh in here.

I'm thinking this won't happen unless it is unanimously approved by all stakeholders, so that's what I'll be seeking.

[ntwkninja]

agree that Cloud Posse has a very robust / tested suite of terraform modules and they are free to use.

If we're only looking to switch only one module it will carry a degree of CloudPosse opinionation that will see strange in comparison to others.

Recommend we look into a partnership and/or using the modules more broadly if we want to make the switch.

The CloudPosse tool chain is OSS) and could serve as a way to accelerate end-to-end delivery (less for us to maintain).

Cloud Posse info:

• Philosphy
  • terragrunt comparison
• License / Relationship: Probably want to have legal look into what we may want the relationship to look like (if we use them, it feels like we should look into a potential financial relationship with them).
  • could be a way to accelerate us to focus on higher levels of the stack
• Opinions around context that may only make sense if we're leveraging CloudPosse for all/most of our modules:
  • context
  • https://github.com/cloudposse/terraform-aws-components/blob/main/modules/account/context.tf
  • It is a bit confusing / not intuitive to work with this opinionation if you haven't worked with it before.

[ntwkninja]

the initial concerns I had with the upstream module when we evaluated previously have been eliminated

left some comments for consideration in the PR but no issues with this change