Re: Contour to CNCF sandbox

Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
 

Hi Liz,

 

Thanks for clarifying.  This was something that I was still fuzzy on as we have been having active discussions on how to streamline the sandbox process to provide more certainty and faster results for stuff.  I wasn’t looking to have Contour do anything we wouldn’t do for other projects.  The specific thing that I think *is* a bit of a change (and correct me if I’m misremembering) is that we aren’t requiring sandbox projects to present as the schedule for the TOC meetings is introducing quite a bit of latency.

 

Also note that there are going to be some projects where we don’t have a SIG that applies yet and in that case it falls to the TOC to do things.  SIG-network is just getting booted up now and, honestly, not sure if they are ready to take on project reviews yet (I may just be unaware here).

 

In any case – this does highlight the continued need to get these new processes settled and well document so that we can execute on the plan to streamline sandbox so that folks can get answers (yes or no) more quickly.

 

Joe

 

From: Liz Rice <liz@...>
Date: Friday, January 10, 2020 at 1:25 AM
To: Gerred Dillon <hello@...>
Cc: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox

 

Glad to see we are all on the same page for Contour. 

 

More generally I think all projects should go through the SIG process for Sandbox even if there is already tentative support from the TOC: 

 

- We shouldn’t short-cut the process just because some projects are better known to some members of the TOC 

- It gives SIG members the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the project too

- It gives the SIG opportunity to compare/contrast with other projects in the space that they may be more familiar with

- At Sandbox this *should* be a lightweight and quick step for SIGs as well as for the TOC

 

With SIGs still being pretty new we have yet to prove whether we can get projects through this process in a timely fashion, but let’s give it a fair go. 

 

--

Liz Rice

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

 

 



On 10 Jan 2020, at 00:36, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

 

Thanks for the corrections - this was not clear when I replied! I don’t claim to speak for Ambassador - I was using it as an example here and would yield to them.

My concerns are assuaged by this - I appreciate your response Joe. 



On Jan 9, 2020, at 7:33 PM, Joe Beda <jbeda@...> wrote:

Hello,

 

Two corrections here:

1) contour is looking at incubation and will be working through the sig.

2) the question here is about how we are utilizing sigs for projects that already have sponsors. We've had discussions on where we are headed here and I personally didn't remember where we landed for sandbox projects with TOC support already.

 

I would expect that this would be applied evenly to all projects without special treatment for contour.

 

If ambassador is looking to join at the sandbox level let's have this discussion.

 

Joe

 


From: Gerred Dillon <hello@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 4:30:10 PM
To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Cc: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>; Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox

 

What are the status of other Envoy-based projects in this space? With Contour asking to skip the SIG process established a few months ago for sandbox - notably recommended by those who are part of this thread - others are being asked to attain, do other ingress projects such as Ambassador have the opportunity to join the sandbox in the same way, or will they need to be part of SIG Network due diligence before becoming a topic for the TOC?

 

If this group is establishing rules that benefit the larger community and foundation, they should apply to everyone - no matter who proposes it for inclusion, or who tries to skip existing protocol set forth for other projects over the holidays.



On Jan 7, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

sorry, this is my mistake, I assumed sandbox for contour out of the gate

 

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:11 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Ah – my mistake.  I know we talked about it.  Chris added the “sandbox” label so that confused me.  I’ll fix it.

 

Agree that if we are talking incubation we should definitely have SIG-network start the process.

 

Sorry for the confusion!

 

From: Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 2:15 PM
To: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox

 

The PR lists incubation as the desired level. So that is not accurate?

 

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:02 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Hi all,

 

I know we’ve talked about not syncing on TOC meetings to get new projects in.  As things stand, we have just submitted contour as a sandbox project and there is support from Alexis and Matt and me.

 

What do we want to consider necessary before we move forward?  Do we want to have SIG-network take a look or do we want to just “make it so”?

 

Personally, I’d be cool with just getting it in but don’t want to jump the gun.

 

Joe

 

 


 

--

Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

 

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