Re: Comment on Increase Sandbox requirement to three sponsors from the TOC

alexis richardson
 

Vinod

The reason I am happy to sponsor Contour is because my team has used it and think it is of a very high quality. I do not need to see a presentation to reach that decision.  Regardless of what level the project applies for. 

Your comments about the TOC members deciding to sponsor at Sandbox and then finding out the project is applying for incubation, and drawing some sinister conclusion, are mistaken and should be withdrawn. 

You make a number of other comparisons with keycloak and other projects.  These comparisons are incorrect. 

If contour is to be accepted as a project it will follow a process and, so far, it is doing so.  For example please note that TOC sponsorship provides no guarantee that a project will pass DD for incubation. In fact, at incubation level the purpose of sponsorship is to get permission to move to the DD stage. 

Alexis 




On Fri, 10 Jan 2020, 01:26 Vinod NA, <vinod@...> wrote:
I also agree with Gerred about the recent submission. Many of you may have missed it as the project got sponsored super fast. 

Every project coming to join the CNCF family should be treated fairly. The TOC should consider the fact that they are willing to donate their project to the CNCF foundation and not to other foundations. 

Quoting Chris "TOC members are expected to act in the interest of CNCF and not their employers". I also think that TOC members should act in the interest of CNCF, not in their personal or their employer's interest. The TOC membership should uphold the CNCF and TOC principles.

I have seen different projects treated differently during their submission. 

I am not against the following project joining CNCF and I believe more projects should join the CNCF family. I am just unhappy with the partiality.

For a recent submission, the TOC members got too excited and sponsored the project, without even any presentation and not completely reviewing the content of the pull request. Only after sponsoring, the TOC members have realized that the project is asking for an incubation maturity level and they thought it was a sandbox. I don't know what was the urgency to get this project sponsored, compared to the other ones which are waiting nearly a year and one even got rejected after not having a sponsor after a year. Now TOC has instructed the SIG-network to review it. I don't understand the purpose of this review. This is like a group of judges already made a judgment and then they're requesting the police officers to investigate it. 

When Keycloak requested to join as a sandbox, the TOC was concerned about the governance and the team responded with their open governance and published ( https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md ). Even though the project team has only asked for Sandbox maturity, the TOC was considering it like an Incubator/Graduation project. The project answered the questions and TOC didn't ask any further questions and didn't mention which CNCF or TOC principle Keycloak didn't meet, it was just rejected saying no "SPONSOR" after waiting a year. 

Keycloak is already used by CNCF member companies. I don't think the decision to reject the project without even accepting it in the sandbox level is in the CNCF community's best interest.

More details will be added in this GitHub issue = https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/331

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020, 10:57 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
Sorry, I am missing something - which projects are proposing to skip the process? And (bearing mind the TOC have to sponsor / vote) do you see support from TOC members for them skipping the process?

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145



On 10 Jan 2020, at 03:57, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Combining a few messages here -

The motivation for the increase makes sense. From a multi-vendor control standpoint, I will move to +1 NB on this particular issue.

That said, I'm sitting on a draft of collected thoughts, of which I will refine and post tomorrow - but in short I feel like change does need to be made, especially in light of other projects that proposed in the past days to skip the process demanded of projects included in the CNCF. This felt like a very clear violation of responsibility to the members that make up the CNCF, it's governing bodies, and those rely upon their decision making processes - and it's been made clear that without someone concerned about it, existing processes are potentially too easy to short-circuit.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 10:36 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
To add a little more context...

The TOC is expanding from 9 to 11 members and a single company (or group of companies under the same umbrella) can have 2 members on it.

The current sandbox process only requires 2 TOC members to sponsor a project. This means a single company with two members is able to add any sandbox project they want.

The CNCF charter notes:

The Cloud Native Computing Foundation seeks to drive adoption of this paradigm by fostering and sustaining an ecosystem of open source, vendor-neutral projects

If the CNCF processes allows a situation for a single vendor to have the ability to add any sandbox projects they like is this enabling vendor neutrality and the charter would like?

An argument has been made it's not so the TOC sponsors should expand to 3 to require multiple organizations to be involved in sponsoring. This is what expanding to 3 TOC sponsors gives us.

Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

This must be frustrating for the people working on those projects.

I would like to see the TOC make some changes to address this problem. A clear documented processes and methodology. Something people on the projects can understand, follow, and depend on.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020, at 11:42 AM, Vinod NA wrote:
-1 NB ( I am not in favor of sponsoring concept at all )
 
I think sponsoring will lead to "King Makers" situation which is against the TOC principle.

I don’t agree that the CNCF sandbox entry barrier is low. Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

I don’t fully agree with the concept that all sandbox projects should graduate. Sandbox then won’t be the ideal name for this stage then. Ideally, all projects should graduate and the CNCF should build sustainable ecosystems for it but there are many other factors that the TOC or CNCF can't control. Projects may go to archives from any stage. The "rkt " project is an example of it.
 
I agree that the TOC review shouldn’t be a tick-the-box exercise. TOC should make the judgment based on facts, not based on what they like or dislike. A TOC member won’t necessarily get enthusiastic about a project if he/she knows very well about that project's domain and technology stack. Also, the TOC does not pick a “winning stack” as per the TOC's operating principles document.

I have opened an issue in the TOC repo with more details, feel free to comment your thoughts there.



On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 16:24 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
Hi Gerred, 

I wanted to follow up with a few thoughts on your comment here. 

Although the barrier to entry for Sandbox is intended to be low, we want to make sure that the projects that come in have a good chance of making it to incubation and graduation. Potential sponsors from the TOC should have confidence that the project is on the right path towards those criteria. It would be doing a disservice to a project if we were to accept it without that confidence. 

Acceptance to the CNCF at any level should never be just a tick-the-box exercise. The TOC should always be able to exercise their judgement and discretion. At the Sandbox level, if there aren’t enough TOC members with the confidence and enthusiasm in a project to step forward as sponsors, then it doesn’t get accepted. 

I hope that helps,
Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145


On 28 Dec 2019, at 06:07, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

-1 non-binding

i'm not thrilled with how the sandbox has already changed without a controlled burn rate, i disagree with this motion without other changes to the sandbox process happening. kudo has already been given -1s on sandbox inclusion based on incubating/graduating requirements in private as negative votes for inclusion -- despite communication that these weren't requirements. sandbox is either inclusive or it's not, and i'd rather inclusion at this stage, given there are no marketing expectations or official endorsement of these projects by the CNCF.

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 4:24 PM Thomas Mclennan <Thomas.mc@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding









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