toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I believe the issue here is simple. The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret. End of story. We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" , which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.
To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what. But please do
it in the OPEN. The CNCF should not compete with its membership.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
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.
Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry. What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.
Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.
I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.
If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF. It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
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).
Thank you for surfacing in a PR.
The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.
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.
I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.
And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.
It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
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.