Re: CNCF SIG "App Delivery"


Karl Wehden
 

I am also interested in the App Delivery / App Scope, and in participation.  We are working through this from a few different viewpoints and would be interested in evaluating and testing the boundaries of the application versus the deployment as a part of a delivery cycle.

Please add my name as well. 

/Karl



On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 4:23 PM Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

> I'd like app delivery to be narrow if possible, but that feels hard already!

From my POV I'm not disagreeing, I just don't have a good sense of what this "narrow scope" includes, so it's hard to know if I'm interested or not.

But, since you were asking for interested folks... please add my name to the list. I can always sneak away later if the scope isn't of interest :-)


thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
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 03:06:55 PM---Hi folks Please can we stop arguing about this. Let the Sig folk draft a charter

From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: Doug Davis <dug@...>, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>, "Brewer, Jeff" <jeff_brewer@...>, Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 03:06 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...





Hi folks

Please can we stop arguing about this.  Let the Sig folk draft a charter for comment and then let's argue, bikeshed, whatever.

All I'm saying is that projects like cloudfoundry and Openshift and openfaas are in their own bucket that aggregates across many things and is huge.

I'd like app delivery to be narrow if possible, but that feels hard already!

A



On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, 20:02 Quinton Hoole, <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
    Doug, the only doc I'm aware of is the proposed SIGs:

    https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/sigs/proposed.md

    But I think that description is not actually universally agreed upon yet, hence this discussion.

    App Dev, Ops & TestingPaaS, Serverless, Operators, CI/CD, Conformance, Chaos Eng, Scalability and Reliability measurement etc.

    At the risk of over-repeating myself, I think it's important that for any given technology-related question that a user comes to us with, we should only essentially have two answers:

    Either:

    1) That's not in scope of the CNCF.  Please find an answer elsewhere.

    or 

    2) Please speak to CNCF SIG X - they cover that area.

    I do not think we should ever have to answer:

    X) Yes, the CNCF considers that in scope, but we don't actually have a place for you to go and discuss that.

    Q


    From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
    Sent:
    Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:36 AM
    To:
    Alexis Richardson
    Cc:
    cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
    Subject:
    Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
     

    Is there a doc that gives a more detailed explanation of what "App Delivery" is meant to cover?
    I honestly do not know what it means for both PaaS and Serverless to be out of scope when I believe all of them are (probably) based on containers and therefore will leverage container images as part of "App Delivery".


    thanks
    -Doug
    _______________________________________________________
    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 02:22:19 PM---Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.

    From:
    Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
    To:
    Doug Davis <dug@...>
    Cc:
    "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>, Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>
    Date:
    06/04/2019 02:22 PM
    Subject:
    [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"





    Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of
    scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.

    On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:08 PM Doug Davis <
    dug@...> wrote:
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > thanks
    > -Doug
    > _______________________________________________________
    > 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.
    > >
    > > Jeff
    > >
    > > On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
    > >
    > >     This email is from an external sender.
    > >
    > >
    > >     Jeff
    > >
    > >     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?
    > >
    > >     a
    > >
    > >     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
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >








--

Karl Wehden
VP of Product Strategy / Marketing
karl.wehden@...
M: +1 206.669.1494


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