I would suggest that we be a bit careful with our terminology around this effort. My guess is that if we use the "s" word some people will immediately push back. I think we may have better luck if we start with smaller less
controversial goals, like describing the space, common terminology, usecases, etc... then let the work naturally drift into looking for areas of interop/harmonization across the popular implementations. This will also give us time to talk with the leaders
from those implementations and, hopefully, get agreement on where they would like to see common ground.
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog
Yaron
Haviv ---04/29/2017 03:25:16 PM---Alexis, The highest priority is to standardize some call semantics (Events, Context, Response), foll
From: Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>
To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>,
Mark Peek <markpeek@...>, "Kenneth Owens (kenowens)" <kenowens@...>,
Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Cc: Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Cathy Zhang <Cathy.H.Zhang@...>,
Ben Kehoe <bkehoe@...>
Date: 04/29/2017 03:25 PM
Subject: RE: Serverless Work Group
Alexis,
The highest priority is to standardize some call semantics (Events, Context, Response), followed with CI/CD tools integration
I believe anything we do can be implemented in a way where a small shim maps existing AWS/Azure/IBM APIs to the common model, this can drive user adoption
Some new or OpenSource projects may adopt that mode natively, and if it gets traction cloud providers may do it as well
AWS is the biggest player by far, I don’t see them running to adopt any standard (not just Serverless), but we can build something that is not too far from Lambda, just fixes things like a common Event schema and
keep the rest optional
Challenge with things like
https://github.com/faaslang/faaslang
(trying to solve this problem) is it address a very narrow API gateway use case, and use the lowest common denominator which doesn’t leverage many native provider capabilities
Yaron
From: Alexis Richardson [mailto:alexis@...]
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 9:25 PM
To: Mark Peek <markpeek@...>; Kenneth Owens (kenowens) <kenowens@...>;
Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>; Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>;
Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Cc: dug@...; Cathy Zhang <Cathy.H.Zhang@...>;
Ben Kehoe <bkehoe@...>
Subject: Re: Serverless Work Group
Mark - thanks! That looks like a helpful input.
Is there a plan to get buy in from the most popular oss projects, cloud services, etc? Why do we think they would find this useful?
(Among numerous other questions & issues)
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017, 15:09 Mark Peek, <markpeek@...> wrote:
Cathy, Ben, and I met in person at
serverlessconf
this week in Austin. The event was well attended (400-500 people?) for the early stages of serverless. In talking amongst ourselves and other people in attendance there does seem to be support for ensuring portability of functions and services across serverless
implementations. We agreed we don’t know what really should be standardized (or perhaps nothing at this time) but would like to discuss further as a CNCF WG.
There is already the notes document with details:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L9n9tkGuGtj7Ap9dVRes9RVscSoXeKsF3k-d2hJcDlg/edit#
And I just put together a couple quick slides that could be used for discussion in the next TOC meeting:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/12v3uQIeE6-t7pGuk1sW5ZHHfbQbXU6zgmvRFeO8fS9Y/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks,
Mark
From: "Kenneth Owens (kenowens)" <kenowens@...>
Date: Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 5:04 AM
To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>,
Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>, Mark Peek <markpeek@...>,
Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Cc: "dug@..." <dug@...>
Subject: Re: Serverless Work Group
Agreed
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: 4/29/17 6:19 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>, Mark Peek <markpeek@...>,
Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Cc: "Kenneth Owens (kenowens)" <kenowens@...>,
dug@...
Subject: Re: Serverless Work Group
I would like to create a WG too. But I feel we to have to properly involve the TOC, and at least have a discussion. I'd be happy to NOT create a WG if difficulties are identified.
One key concern for me is that a WG creates documents that diminish the standing of the CNCF, by being substantially ignored by the community of popular open source implementations. There is also the issue of organisation. Quite a few people have volunteered
to help organise it, not all of whom work for platinum seats and I do not want to exclude them.
Chris, can you table this as a major item for the next TOC meeting please?
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
I've created a repo here:
https://github.com/cncf/draft-wg-serverless
For WGs, all we've said is we need one TOC sponsor so this should be good.
Alexis, any issues? Do we want to formally propose the creation of this at the next TOC call.
I do recall BrianG having an issue with having a specific WG on this topic.
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Kenneth Owens (kenowens) <kenowens@...> wrote:
Chris,
Can you please create a workgroup repo for the effort here. I will take this on and get us organized based on the way Network and Storage are going.
Thanks,
Ken
|
Think before you print.
|
|
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.
Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Please
click
here for Company Registration Information.
|
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
