Re: Incubation of OpenEBS in to CNCF?
|
Quinton Hoole
Hi Saad
Thanks for your questions. Answers inline below.
From: cncf-toc@... [cncf-toc@...] on behalf of via Lists.Cncf.Io [saadali=google.com@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 2:34 PM To: cncf-wg-storage; cncf-toc@...; kubernetes-sig-storage Cc: cncf-toc@... Subject: [cncf-toc] Incubation of OpenEBS in to CNCF?
Hi CNCF Storage WG,
Based on recent presentation and discussions in the CNCF Storage WG meeting, I understand that we are considering adopting OpenEBS as a new CNCF sandbox or incubator project? Is that
correct?
Quinton> Yes, sandbox.
If so, I'd like to understand the motivations for doing so? What will the benefit of doing so be for users of the CNCF ecosystem?
Quinton> Here is the motivation behind sandbox: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md .
I think that answers most of your questions in more detail than I do here, but I'll add a few minor comments below.
As far as I understand, OpenEBS is a software defined storage system exposing block and file storage that is comprised of micro-services that run on top of Kubernetes.
There are many other projects that are doing similar things: including Portworx, Rook (already a CNCF incubator project), StorageOS, Robin Systems, and others. Kubernetes (with CSI) already allows workloads to consume any block or file storage system (including
these ones) in a portable manner.
Quinton> Yes any open source project may decide to apply to donate their project to the CNCF. If accepted by the TOC, they get a neutral home within which to
collaborate, governance and other help from the CNCF, and the users of and contributors to the project get a level of assurance that the project will continue to operate as per the principles set out by the CNCF, its TOC, board etc. Some projects choose to
do that, and others do not. Either way is fine.
At the time when Rook was incubated in to the CNCF, Kubernetes wasn't the de facto container orchestration system, and so it made sense to promote projects that encouraged new types of workloads to run on top of Kubernetes.
That is no longer a concern, and given the diversity of projects in this space I don't see the benefit of promoting specific block and file storage implementations within the CNCF ecosystem.
Quinton> See above. Note that this is not an attempt to promote one project above another. Any project may apply. To my knowledge, none of the examples you
gave have (yet) chosen to do so.
I want to stress that the team behind OpenEBS (at MayaData) is wonderful, and have been strong supports of the CNCF and Kubernetes. But at the same time I want to make sure we act intentionally within the CNCF for the clear benefit of users. And, at the very
least, we should establish a clear strategy for adopting new projects in this space.
Quinton> I think that strategy is fairly clearly laid out above, and in other supporting CNCF docs. I'd be happy to hop on a call with you and anyone else who's
interested to discuss further if there's a desire to do so. Or we could just add it to the agenda for the next working group meeting in 2 weeks time.
Regards,
Saad Ali
|
|
|