Re: CNI discussion - actions

alexis richardson


On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 19:35 Brian Grant via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Stefan Junker via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

I’m one of the maintainers of CNI. I was on the CNCF call yesterday
during which understood only TOC members should state their opinion, so
I decided to just listen and write down my thoughts afterwards.

Although CNI is a small project it has been around for a while, and
since I joined, the goal has transitioned away from the initial
statement which was still captured in the README. Shortly after the call
I submitted a small but significant change [1] which I hope will clarify
the position of the project.

We, the maintainers, don’t want to make CNI a blessed standard. Instead,
we hold great value in the specification that has already allowed many
projects to use the flexible plugin system for developing and
interconnecting simple to complex container networking solutions.

Our hope is that the CNCF provides a stable, vendor-neutral brand and
home to foster these values, so that even more developers feel
comfortable to help improve the quality of existing code and upstream
their plugin code.

As a next step, for now, if you'd like to create a more neutral brand, I recommend moving the project to its own github org. Practically speaking, that would make the project easier to manage, also.


Thanks for your attention! I will also be happy to answer any questions
that the TOC has about the project.

Stefan Junker


cncf-toc mailing list

cncf-toc mailing list

Join to automatically receive all group messages.