Note: lists.cncf.io will be down for maintenance on Monday, September 26th, starting at 9AM Pacific Time (4PM Monday September 26, 2022 UTC), for approximately one hour.
- Point of process
Re: Point of process
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Thank you for raising this Chris.
I have contacted the TOC multiple times on unfair treatment and inequality, especially when it comes to TOC sponsorship and prioritisation even for sandbox submissions. From my experience, it's based on TOC intuition, personal or professional interest and the project merits or CNCF community interests are not always considered. Multiple other submissions are also waiting for TOC's mercy/reply. I have also requested the criteria/quality metrics for TOC's sponsorship, for which a proper answer wasn't given. It would be greatly appreciated if TOC could follow the CNCF principles (Fast is better than slow, Open, Fair, etc.)
If TOC is doing the right thing for the community I think it's also very important to be open and share details. Please also respond to community concerns.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...
Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:
- First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
- I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago. To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal. It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space). Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).
Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.
On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...
During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.
As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.
Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.
Join email@example.com to automatically receive all group messages.