1. posterid:556643
  2. [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

alexis richardson
 

+1 binding

After some thought.

I believe linkerd has met the incubation criteria.  That is not hard to see.

I am concerned that linkerd needs more momentum to sustain high quality development both from the buoyant folks and from the community.  I don't think that overlap with envoy is the primary concern here.  My main worry is with the overall roadmap and plan - long term what problems linkerd needs to solve well and under what assumptions.

I'm voting +1 because I believe William, Oliver and co understand this is an issue and will work on it as they continue with Conduit in parallel.

Let's see how things go!


On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 00:36 Jonathan Boulle, <jon@...> wrote:
+1 binding 

Camille Fournier <skamille@...> schrieb am Di., 3. Apr. 2018, 23:06:
+1 binding

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...> wrote:
+1 binding

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:47 AM Ken Owens <kenchristineowens@...> wrote:
+1 Binding

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:56 AM, William Morgan <william@...> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
I assume the maintainers govern all linkerd repositories, since other repositories do not contain MAINTAINERS.md files.
 
Yes.

I see (super-)maintainers can be added via nomination and vote. It may be useful to develop a particular contribution bar for (super-)maintainers, such as number of commits or duration on the project or number of subsystems they have worked on, so contributors know roughly what to strive for and existing (super-)maintainers have guidelines for nominating new members of those groups.

Great suggestion. With the current model we aimed for the simplest, most basic structure that still captured what we thought was important (some maintainers are experts in a subsystem; some maintainers are experts in the overall workings). But we'll almost definitely need to refine this over time.

Thinking about this further, it would've been really useful to have a library of vetted / "good" governance models to read through when we were doing this. Perhaps this is something the CNCF could provide as a resource for projects?

Clearly we do care about contributor diversity, so that's something we should explore whether/how CNCF could help improve that in the future.

This is also very much in my interest and I'd love any help, though I'm not sure what the CNCF would be able to do about this in practice. In Linkerd's case, at least, contributorship only really happened after there was significant adoption.




--
Benjamin Hindman
Founder of Mesosphere and Co-Creator of Apache Mesos

Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere

Follow Us Twitter LinkedIn Facebook YouTube
 
 


Join {cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io to automatically receive all group messages.