Re: Welcome Ihor: New CNCF Dev Advocate
NASSAUR, DOUGLAS C <dn283x@...>
I second Patrick's comments!! Welcome!!
Regards, Doug
On Sep 18, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Patrick Chanezon via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Welcome Ihor: New CNCF Dev Advocate
Rob Lalonde
Cool! Welcome Ihor!
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Rob
|
|
Re: Welcome Ihor: New CNCF Dev Advocate
Annie Fisher <afisher@...>
Welcome, Ihor!!! So happy to have you on the team :) Annie Fisher, MPA CSM Program Manager, The Linux FoundationLocation & Time-zone: San Francisco, CA, PT
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Welcome Ihor: New CNCF Dev Advocate
Patrick Chanezon <patrick.chanezon@...>
Excellent choice: good luck in your new role Ihor! P@
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Welcome Ihor: New CNCF Dev Advocate
Xu Wang
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 10:03 AM, Sebastien Goasguen via cncf-toc cncf-toc@... wrote:
-- Xu Wang CTO & Cofounder, Hyper github/twitter/wechat: @gnawux Hyper_: Make VM run like container
|
|
Re: Welcome Ihor: New CNCF Dev Advocate
Sebastien Goasguen <sebgoa@...>
Great pick, Congrats Ihor ! (now we know were you landed)
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Sarah Conway via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
--
Sebastien Goasguen Senior Director of Cloud Technologies, Bitnami +41 79 367 38 25 @sebgoa
|
|
Re: Welcome Ihor: New CNCF Dev Advocate
Sarah Conway <sconway@...>
Welcome!
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
--
Sarah Conway Senior Director of PR Services The Linux Foundation (978) 578-5300 Cell Skype: sarah.k.conway
|
|
Welcome Ihor: New CNCF Dev Advocate
Just a heads up, I'm happy to welcome Ihor Dvoretskyi to the CNCF: As many of you are aware, CNCF has grown quite a bit over the last couple of years which is why we have hired a full-time Developer Advocate dedicated to the development, advocacy and community cultivation for CNCF projects. Ihor will still heavily be involved in the Kubernetes community and ensuring that we are doing the best we can for Kubernetes and other CNCF projects as we continue to grow as a foundation. Anyways, welcome Ihor! -- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
Re: TOC Principles pull request
alexis richardson
Thanks Dan All, please do take a last look over the g/doc comments. If you see discussion there that you feel is not in GH or still unresolved, please update the GH doc. Alexis
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, 04:01 Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
TOC Principles pull request
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
I took the TOC Principles document created by several TOC members and:
1. Converted it to markdown. 2. Left out the notes and comments on the budget. The notes and comments are important (and remain in the original Google Doc), but will hopefully be addressed by the CNCF ServiceDesk and Service Dashboard that we'll be announcing in the next couple weeks. For now, the TOC and I would appreciate your comments on the Principles themselves. If you don't think they adequately describe the way the TOC operates (and/or how it should operate), then please comment on the pull request. Once comments are addressed, the goal is for the TOC to vote that this document represents the TOC Principles, and to have the CNCF governing board vote to endorse the Principles as well. Rendered version Pull request (comments welcome) TOC Principles (i.e., the original document) Thanks. -- Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/> tel:+1-415-233-1000
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Quinton Hoole
Would it make sense to also highlight “CNCF Member” projects, distinct from “CNCF Project”s? The former much less prominently than the latter of course.
For example:
Oracle Database
Amazon Kinesis
Etc.
Q
Quinton Hoole Technical Vice President America Research Center 2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Tel: 408-330-4721 Cell: 408-320-8917 Office # E2-9 Email: quinton.hoole@... ID#Q00403160
From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Brian Grant via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Brian Grant <briangrant@...> Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 18:21 To: Dan Kohn <dan@...> Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] New version of Cloud Native Landscape
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Brian Grant
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
But I'm not very familiar with any of those. Most clouds offer them, too. Hashi's comparisons: I'll think more about the layering, but I don't think provisioning is egregiously wrong, as it's a service commonly offered by clouds, configuration management tools, orchestration systems, and so on, which applications usually need in order to be able to authenticate with any other services.
No CNCF projects have graduated incubation yet :-)
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
In the next version, we'll rename Public cloud to cloud and put the bare metal category next to the public cloud one.
That's done on 0.9.7, along with identifying Jaeger and Envoy as CNCF Projects.
That category is changed to Secure Images. Where would you put a Key Management category? What else would go there?
OK.
I think it might make sense to list as a CNCF project when it exits incubation. Or we could call it a CNCF sub-project, or something like that.
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Dustin Kirkland <kirkland@...>
On Sep 13, 2017 15:27, "Brian Grant via cncf-toc" <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Big +1 on this request from Brian, particularly from the perspective of MAAS (Metal as a Service), as well as OpenStack, VMware, et al. Those all definitely make more logical sense at the base level, bottom of the technology stack, and along side the public clouds.
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Brian Grant
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
Coming back to this: Please move Openstack, VMWare, and the other private cloud platforms back to the bottom. Bare metal should be side by side with public clouds, not in the provisioning layer. CI/CD definitely needs to be moved back up to the top. "CI/CD Security" is incorrect/confusing. Image Security? And Vault isn't really in the same category as the others. That would be Key Management or Identity. Though not a recent change, it would probably make sense to move Registry Services down to the provisioning layer. Nit: cri-o is a Kubernetes project, so it's owned by CNCF. Not sure how you want to indicate that.
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
NASSAUR, DOUGLAS C <dn283x@...>
If it would be useful I'd like to introduce the periodic table of cloud native elements I've been driving with several of our members. It's intend is to provide an elemental view of cloud outcomes, how they differ from traditional applicable hosting/virtualization and the elements and enablers required to realize the outcomes. Each "element" is described in terms of characteristics, behaviors and attributes, is technology agnostic and introduces interface and inter-element agreements that define interfaces. Lastly it references this body of work to tie the science to the product and project current state. Let me know what you think and thanks for the time.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Regards, Doug
On Sep 13, 2017, at 12:07 PM, Bernstein, Joshua via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Erin Boyd
Can we make the 2-D one more generic with drill downs for the online version that articulate all the products? I love that it highlights choices, but it should be able to provide an illustrative representation and not try to cram in the kitchen sink. Plus, as this evolves, it will constantly have to be updated and versioned. It might be nice to be able to change it where things will change (projects,projects) dynamically and the static version is more just a 'general' presentation.
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Paul Fischer via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Paul Fischer
Personally I think it highlights the freedom of choice. Yes it is complex and there are many decisions to make but don't we have to do that with any complex architecture we are trying to build? I will use this in my company to illustrate the growth and speed at which cloud native development is happening. Hopefully it can help drive and structure conversions around all the pieces that are needed to build a working architecture. My 2 cents Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 13, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Bernstein, Joshua via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: [RESULT] Jaeger project ACCEPTED (incubation)
Thanks to everyone for their support, and especially to Chris and Alexis for helping out with the process, and to Bryan for being our sponsor. We're excited to join the community and work with all other CNCF projects!
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Ken Owens via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: [RESULT] Jaeger project ACCEPTED (incubation)
Many thanks for everyone's efforts on bringing Jaeger into the CNCF fold! Congrats to the Jaeger team and to CNCF TOC for taking this step! Diane
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Ken Owens via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
--
Kind Regards, Diane Mueller Director, Community Development Red Hat OpenShift @openshiftcommons We have more in Common than you know, learn more at http://commons.openshift.org
|
|