toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I think it's in scope of some theoretical future SIG, when we have projects / active discussions in that area.
That future SIG could even be this SIG-App Delivery in some future incarnation that wishes to take it on, IMO
We could carve it out as a proposed SIG that folks can pick up and run with, should they wish, if that would make people feel more comfortable that we view it as generally in the purview of the CNCF?
On 4 Jun 2019, 20:51 +0200, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, wrote:
Liz, to be clear, is your opinion that PaaS, Frameworks, IDE's etc are:
a) out of scope of the CNCF
b) in scope of some other CNCF SIG (and if so, which?)
c) something else?
From: Liz Rice <liz@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:30 AM
To: Quinton Hoole; alexis richardson
Cc: Doug Davis; cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
I am not sure we do ourselves any favours by separating Serverless into its own vertical.
Would you expect serverless / function security to fall into the remit of SIG-security? I would. Given that, what if this SIG were to encompass app definition in both Serverless / functions and container-based approaches?
I agree with Alexis that moving up the stack to frameworks / IDEs etc is a huge area that doesn't need to be in scope.
On 4 Jun 2019, 20:27 +0200, alexis richardson <alexis@...>, wrote:
i see app frameworks and platforms as "next tier in the stack" that should draw on foundations from the CNCF SIGs, including app delivery, security, storage, ...
Plus, there will be 1000s of them.
So please can they have their own Area.
My personal opinion is that everything that we consider to be in scope of the CNCF needs to be in scope for at least one CNCF SIG. Ergo anything that is declared out of scope for this CNCF Apps SIG either needs to be in scope of another SIG, or our of scope of the CNCF in general.
My other personal opinion that is of relevance here is that we should keep the number of CNCF SIGs as small as possible today (based on the "SIG Sprawl" experience in Kubernetes, which resulted in large numbers of ineffective SIGs - we saw much more of that failure case than "A highly effective SIG whose scope is too broad").
CNCF SIGs should by all means contain more specifically focussed subgroups (whether it be a working group, or a sub-project, or whatever), but I think each subgroup should be very clearly under the auspices of a CNCF SIG.
So, to get back to the original question regarding scope of this SIG, I would suggest that:
- Serverless applications should be considered a subclass of applications, and fall within this CNCF Apps SIG.
- Serverless infrastructure (e.g. how to build FaaS systems on top of Kubernetes, etc) should fall under the "CNCF Core and Applied Architectures" SIG.
- PaaS and the other areas I mentioned (Cloud IDE's, CI/CD, Experiment frameworks etc) should fall under this CNCF Apps SIG, unless (1) we can convince another CNCF SIG to consider them in scope (seems highly dubious), or (2) the TOC deems them to be out of scope of the CNCF as a whole (also seems highly dubious).
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:08 AM
To: alexis richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog
"alexis richardson" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...
Yep, they are.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
> On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
> This email is from an external sender.
> I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
> and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
> supporting dev tools.
> IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
> Does this make sense?
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
> > Jeff
> > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
> > This email is from an external sender.
> > Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
> > Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> > SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> > figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
> > Interested? Email us offline.
> > Alexis+Michelle