Add blog gardener-enhances-observability-with-opentelemetry-integration-for-logging

[gardener-answering-machine]

Purpose:
This is an automatically generated draft pull request proposing a new blog post based on a Gardener review meeting:

"Gardener Enhances Observability with OpenTelemetry Integration for Logging"

The purpose is to inform the community about new Gardener features or changes, as discussed during review meetings.

Notes to Reviewers:
This draft was automatically generated by LLMs using the review meeting recording and referenced materials.
Please evaluate whether this topic is suitable for a blog post. If so, review and edit the content as needed.
If you decide the topic isn’t appropriate for a blog post, feel free to close this PR and delete the branch.

⚠️ This is an experimental GenAI feature. Feedback is welcome! Please direct it to @vlerenc. Thank you!

Instructions for Reviewers:

1. Clone the repository and change to the directory:

git clone https://github.com/gardener/documentation
cd documentation

2. Check out the branch:

git fetch origin && git checkout blog/2025-06-18-gardener-enhances-observability-with-opentelemetry-integration-for-logging

3. Review the content in website/blog/2025/06-18-gardener-enhances-observability-with-opentelemetry-integration-for-logging.md.
4. Make any necessary edits, additions, or removals and then push the changes:

git add website/blog/2025/06-18-gardener-enhances-observability-with-opentelemetry-integration-for-logging.md
git commit --amend --no-edit
git push origin +blog/2025-06-18-gardener-enhances-observability-with-opentelemetry-integration-for-logging

5. If the draft isn’t viable, close this PR and delete the branch.
6. If the post is ready for further review or publishing:
   • Mark this PR as Ready for review
   • Invite additional reviewers or merge the PR

Thank you for helping us share valuable updates from the Gardener project with the community!

[nickytd]

@rrhubenov please check the blog content

[rrhubenov]

The document itself is well structured and I think it's great from a "did we describe the changes well enough" standpoint.

My only concern is that delegating the process of writing a blog post to an LLM will make them more 'clinical' and maybe uniform (and not in a good way). But that just might be a knee-jerk reaction from me regarding the overall uneasy feeling I get from using LLMs for this purpose.
I'm also unaware what the overall point of the blog posts we're publishing is. Most importantly - who's supposed to be reading them and for what purpose. I feel like that should be the standpoint from which we should decide how and for what we publish blog posts.

But again, I'm not well informed on the topic. Regarding the topic I'm informed - OTEL in Gardener, blog post seems nice and well structured!

[vlerenc]

The document itself is well structured and I think it's great from a "did we describe the changes well enough" standpoint.

+1

My only concern is that delegating the process of writing a blog post to an LLM will make them more 'clinical' and maybe uniform (and not in a good way). But that just might be a knee-jerk reaction from me regarding the overall uneasy feeling I get from using LLMs for this purpose.

True, they will show some similarity, because of the model/its weights and the system prompt. However, they will not be too similar, I hope, because I do not let one run see the blogs of other runs (on purpose), so nuances in the context (your language, the references) influence to the larger extent the storyline and therefore the blog post.

See the current 4 blogs - I would not say, they are uniform and clinical (in a bad way).

In regards to your feeling: I get that, but I share it only partly. LLMs have 0 intelligence, so I object their use for dumb/vibe code generation, but LLMs are pretty amazing when it comes to rewriting natural language (PR + recording into a blog). Since 2 years I have incorporated them into such (tedious) tasks and they are great from my PoV. In previous times, only what had an API was easy, because I could program/automate it, but since the advent of LLMs, I can now also automate NL processing jobs, get data out of text, or put data to text.

Either way, if you feel it's bad, just close the PR. If too many PRs are closed, I see that it was a stupid idea and will stop the automation that proposes the blogs. No big deal - I will react to your feedback.

I'm also unaware what the overall point of the blog posts we're publishing is. Most importantly - who's supposed to be reading them and for what purpose. I feel like that should be the standpoint from which we should decide how and for what we publish blog posts.

The draft PR says that actually:

The purpose is to inform the community about new Gardener features or changes, as discussed during review meetings.

We are very short on blogs, even though we are quite active. Just see through the past years - a handful of blogs even though we released many small and also huge improvements. Also, we/our own people don't always know how/where to submit a blog post, how the frontmatter header must look, etc.

Fact is, we are very silent (nobody blogs) and do not advertise our work at all/enough. Even if nobody reads the new blogs, then people checking out the site will still see them and who knows, maybe one or the other title catches their interest. At any rate, they will get the feeling of activity. I say activity, because these blogs are not about "pretending" (showing activity where there is none), but about "unsilencing" ourselves, i.e. showing to the (NeoNephos) community that we actually further Gardener continuously.

[rrhubenov]

Thank you for the explanation!

I can see the benefits of this approach and I agree that LLMs are amazing at rewriting and summarising text. Even if I tried, I don't think I would be able to reach the coherence that an LLM can achieve in this form of work.

One thing that I would like to add is that I'm hopeful that this won't dissuade us from writing blog posts ourselves when there's a particularly interesting topic to share. The blog posts I personally most enjoy reading, are ones that tell a compelling story about a problem, gives background about the technology and maybe shares the human aspect as well. But again, that depends on the purpose of the blogs. If the main purpose is, as you've said, informing the community about new Gardener features/changes, then my worry is not really applicable to that sort of blog posts.

Gardener is a very interesting technology. I believe there are multiple technical challenges that are interesting to share even with a wider community that is not necessarily familiar with Gardener itself. There might be further untapped potential there.

Excuse me if my comments are redundant or not informed enough. I don't have any particular criticism to share with any of the blog posts that have been uploaded thus far, nor do I have the full context. I simply feel obliged to share my, admittedly, not fully thought out worries and perspectives.

I'm fully open to writing a blog post in the future so that my opinions get manifested in some way, rather than just thoughts :)

[nickytd]

/lgtm

[vlerenc]

@rrhubenov Absolutely, everybody is still encouraged to write blog posts, for a "compelling story about a problem" or otherwise.

It's only that just a few do. Look through the archives and count the blogs. There are just a few.

That we now propose one per review meeting presentation should not dissuade anybody from writing their own on such stories. It's just an aid to share word about things presented in that very review meeting (because people wrote already the code and did the presentation, so nobody really shares word otherwise).

It doesn't mean, all blog are now exclusively written by that "machine".

[rrhubenov]

I see, thank you :)

[n-boshnakov]

/lgtm