Is there a reason we don't want to create a PR for sandbox so it gets going in the correct direction and follows the process of being assigned first to a SIG?
I was hoping to have a conversation with the TOC, CNCF staff, and other projects needing/having a hub (e.g., Falco and OPA) first for two reasons:
- The CNCF provides services for projects. Services for projects are part of the fostering and supporting work the CNCF does to help them. I wanted to see if this fits better as a project itself or as a service to support projects alongside the other services already provided.
- I wanted to make sure the other CNCF projects needing/having a hub were looped into this so they had an opportunity to evaluate and weight in on this. The existing conversations did not have enough CNCF project coverage. Hearing their feedback will help shape direction and may even influence point 1.
If the conversations next week suggest a project proposal is needed then I would argue it's a good time for that. Existing work to support projects from the CNCF did not need or rush to project proposals. I think we can be patient so that more people whom this impacts can come up to speed.
Of course, this is just my 2 cents.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Erin Boyd wrote:
Well it appears I have stuck my foot in my mouth...so apologies.
It looks like this is the most broad list we have for the CNCF community.
Can we safely assume that all the SIGs are also subscribed here?
Is there a reason we don't want to create a PR for sandbox so it gets going in the correct direction and follows the process of being assigned first to a SIG? Github seems like the most logical place to get the ball rolling imo.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:12 AM Matt Farina <matt@...
Which public mailing list are you referring to?
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 12:06 PM, Erin Boyd wrote:
Can we please move all these discussions to the public mailing list and/or a PR for sandbox? Now that the repo has been made public, let's invite the other interested parties that aren't necessarily subscribed to the TOC mailing list to participate.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...
Matt - yes that is the point of the Monday call at 9am Pacific
Would you or anyone else care to join?
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:14 AM Matt Farina <matt@...
Did the Falco and OPA folks want to talk about this together prior to coming to a CNCF call? Possibly to prepare for the CNCF call.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 10:55 AM, Kris Nova wrote:
So we set up a call next Monday morning with Falco + OPA to discuss this. Looks like a lot of this has been happening without our communities involved. Should we all join forces for a CNCF wide call here?
Right now we are scheduled for Monday the 16th at 9am Pacific
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:26 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi <jj@...
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:48 PM Liz Rice <liz@...
Thanks Dan & Matt for getting this public!
We had a brief discussion on this in the closed TOC call yesterday, and it’s clear that many TOC members have questions and ideas around this. We are suggesting a public call with Dan, Matt, Gerred and whoever else are the interested parties (possibly in next week’s TOC meeting slot). The strategy behind the distribution and discovery of artifacts is extremely important for the whole community.
On 11 Mar 2020, at 13:05, Gerred Dillon <hello@...
3. Projects commissioned or sanctioned by the CNCF, including initial code for CNCF WG collaborations, and “experimental” projects
Following this, I would suggest to the TOC we would proceed with moving this through the SIG process as a Sandbox project. Where I would like to understand is what is the graduation pathway for this - does it graduate to being a CNCF Service? An incubating project like any other? Furthermore, if it's a CNCF service, does it follow different requirements to leave sandbox?
I look forward to getting involved in the development and governance of this project. Thanks Dan, Matt, Cynthia, Sergio, and the Operator Framework / Helm teams for the discussion back at KubeCon!
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:35 PM Matt Farina <matt@...
Hello folks, I want to share that the CNCF Hub which was alluded to in the last TOC call is now public. You can find the source at https://github.com/cncf/hub.
From the README:
Hub is a web-based application that enables finding, installing, and publishing packages and configurations for CNCF projects. For example, this could include Helm charts, Falco configurations, and Open Policy Agent (OPA) policies.
Discovering artifacts to use with CNCF projects can be difficult. If every CNCF project that needs to share artifacts creates its own Hub this creates a fair amount of repeat work for each project and a fractured experience for those trying to find the artifacts to consume. The CNCF Hub attempts to solve that by providing a single experience for consumers that any CNCF project can leverage.
The project, accessible at https://hub.cncf.io, is currently in development in a pre-alpha state. Support for Helm charts is in development with plans to support more projects to follow. Pull requests, especially those to support other CNCF projects, are welcome.
I look forward to some healthy discussion over the technical bits along with how to proceed positionally with the project. For example, is this something that should be a sandbox project or a service from the CNCF? Or, something else?
For those interested in some more history and context...
At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon SD, last November, a group of us got together. That include Dan Kohn along with representatives from the Operator Framewok, KUDO, and Helm. Note, both the Operator Framework and KUDO are projects that were and are proposed for the CNCF.
After that meeting I was asked to write an initial specification to kick things off. You can read there here
. The specification was started to be turned into reality by Dan through Cynthia and Sergio.
For those who might wonder why this was not more public sooner... the plan was to do so but the virus impact on operations, like the movement of conferences, has impacted the schedule.
I want to thank Dan for bringing people together around this topic and working to make the idea a reality.
I'm happy to try to answer any questions. But, as I have only been involved during parts of this process (and often to a limited extent outside of the spec and initial meeting) I may have to defer to others for answers.
Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105