Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal

Igor Mameshin

"Security and Compliance" is a good name.  I would not limit it just to "Security".  Rapidly evolving cloud environments do require governance, and there is a broad range of policies that need to be automated - security, cloud tagging, data filtering, cost management, GDPR, data provenance, bias checkers for AI, etc.     

I suggest to update the SIG description to also include "policy compliance".  One of the CNCF projects is already providing capabilities around automated policy compliance beyond security:

This description may help to promote more work on automated policy compliance beyond security, which I think is very important.  May be "Security and Governance"?

Thank you,

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:55 AM Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...> wrote:
+1 to Security & Compliance over Governance 

(Which will get abbreviated to SecComp and then everyone will think there’s a SIG on seccomp profiles. :) 

On Feb 2, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Sure - regulations are what folks have to be in compliance with. So long as the SIG doesn't start writing more regulations :-)

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:26, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, 14:24 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
+1 that "Governance" isn't a great name for this security-related SIG. I'd suggest "Security and Compliance". In many cases end users are concerned not just with security but also with associated standards compliance (PCI, GDPR, FedRamp etc). I believe the CNCF could add a lot of value by helping to establish what's necessary or best practice for meeting these compliance requirements.

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@...> wrote:
I agree with Sarah, and this is where most people missunderstand policy - they think of it in terms of governance instead of a set of rules which provides constraints for a cluster. Could we change it to security & policy or even just Security , or something else ?

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 6:31 AM Sarah Allen via Lists.Cncf.Io <> wrote:
Overall the doc looks great -- thanks Alexis for your editorial work and Quinton for moving this forward!

One small point on naming of a specific SIG: 


security, authentication, authorization, auditing, policy enforcement

SPIFFE, SPIRE, Open Policy Agent, Notary, TUF,  Falco,

The word "governance" is often used to convey human processes of policy (e.g. how decisions are made, roles and responsibilities, etc.), and if I saw that in a list of SIGs, I probably wouldn't go looking there for security.  

Also note that the "Governance" section of the same doc addressees those same kinds of human policy concerns (e.g. "SIGs must have a documented governance process that encourages community participation and clear guidelines to avoid biased decision-making."), yet the topics for the SIG and list of projects are more about the software used to implement security and privacy, along with ensuring compliance (auditing, etc).

Also, note that some open source projects have a (or similarly named directory) to define project roles and decision-making process (examples: Nodecloudevents, SAFE, docker, k8s community)

Interested in what others think about this naming detail.


On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:34 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
My apologies Diane – I just reread the Operating Model section and you’re right - it’s not sufficiently clear on the point you raised.  I will add some wording to the effect of my email reply below.



From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Diane Mueller-Klingspor <dmueller@...>
Date: Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 06:54
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>, Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal


If you are referring to this one sentence:

"The TOC makes use of this input to act as an informed and effective executive board to select and promote appropriate CNCF projects and practices, and to disseminate high quality information to end users and the cloud-native community in general." as the section discussion the creation/instantiation/proposal process for new SIGs"

I'd like a bit more clarity. If someone from the community (outside of the TOC) wishes to propose a SIG, what it the process? Or is it just the purview of the TOC on know when a new SIG should be created - then that would be nice to have clarified further.

If there's another section of the document, that you feel clarifies this SIG instantiation/proposal process, please point me in the right direction. I'm just not finding it.

Thanks for your help,

Diane Mueller

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:16 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Thanks Diane

I think that’s adequately covered in the doc - the TOC creates and approves SIG’s.  If anyone believes we need to create more SIG’s, they should, by implication, ask the TOC to do that.  The current intention is to keep the number of SIGs relatively small, at least initially, and make sure they’re all highly effective before expanding the number of SIG's.


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Diane Mueller-Klingspor <dmueller@...>
Date: Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 05:27
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>, Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

Quinton et al,

Would it be possible to ask for a section in the Operator Model on how one goes about proposing a new SIG and the process for getting it approved?
(or if there is documentation on this topic elsewhere, reference/link to it in an appendix)?

Kind Regards,

Diane Mueller
Director, Community Development
Red Hat 

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:47 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Greetings to the new TOC

Late last year Alexis kicked off a public discussion regarding forming CNCF SIG’s (initially referred to as Categories).  Since then a few of us have collaborated on soliciting further input, addressing all the comments, and producing a finalish proposal for consideration by the TOC.

Please give it a read and we can decide how to proceed at the next meeting this Tue, Feb 5


From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 07:58
To: Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>
Cc: Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>
Subject: Re: CNCF TOC SIGs Doc

can you put this link into the main doc as a comment?

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:57 PM Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...> wrote:

Hi Alexis,

Following our initial discussion in Seattle, Quinton and I had a discussion on this.   I captured the notes and applied them to the operating model.   I decided to make a copy of the doc and apply the changes to operating model section only - the current doc is hard to process due to the number of comments.

Here is the amended operating model content:

Kind Regards,


From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Sent: 09 January 2019 19:36
To: Erin Boyd; Sarah Allen
Cc: Bryan Cantrill; Chris Aniszczyk; Quinton Hoole; Alex Chircop; Matt Farina
Subject: CNCF TOC SIGs Doc
hi all

happy 2019!

how's this doc looking?  I daren't look.  can we show the toc an update next week?


On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:35 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, 13:35 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
Sounds good.
Please feel free to catch me on Slack.


On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:18 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thank you Erin.  Let's try and sync 1-1 during the week 

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018, 00:42 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
HI Alexis,
I think I am speaking on a panel at this time.
I can collaborate in the document.
Sorry about that.

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:46 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

CNCF TOC meeting re SIGs Doc

meeting to discuss the Categories and SIGs doc
identify and divide up work tasks to clean up draft doc.
eg: we agree a new section plan and each take one section? or something
Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:30pm – 4:10pm Mountain Time - Denver
lobby of the Sheraton Grand Seattle (map)
Joining info
Or dial: +1 929-299-3513  PIN: 706587657#
Alexis Richardson - organizer
Matt Farina
Chris Aniszczyk

Going (eboyd@...)?   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this email at the account eboyd@... because you are subscribed for invitations on calendar eboyd@....

To stop receiving these emails, please log in to and change your notification settings for this calendar.

Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to modify your RSVP response. Learn More.

Kind Regards,

Diane Mueller
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift

We have more in Common than you know, learn more at

Kind Regards,

Diane Mueller
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift

We have more in Common than you know, learn more at

Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Principle Engineer
IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen

Liz Rice
@lizrice  | (0) 780 126 1145

Liz Rice
@lizrice  | (0) 780 126 1145

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.