|
Re: TOC call: this week & next week
alexis richardson
Yes, I'm just waiting for someone to OK sharing a particular URL on the slides.
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:13 PM Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: TOC call: this week & next week
Brian Grant
Is there an agenda for today's meeting?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: an interesting read, about "Cloud Native"
Brian Grant
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Our mission is currently defined more natively than Joe's definition of "cloud native": The mission is described in terms of mechanisms rather than goals: containers, dynamic management, micro-services. To me, "cloud native" implies turn-key/self-service/automated provisioning, predictable/reproducible deployment, elastic scaling, self-healing, automatic discovery, and automatic monitoring. These properties increase the velocity of application delivery and management scalability (i.e., manage N things as easily as 1). ssh-ing into an instance to configure it manually in a non-reproducible fashion, manually creating a configuration file listing IP addresses of specific instances, and crashing if a dependency is not reachable are examples that don't quality as "cloud native". Are containers more "cloud native" than VMs? Unless we want to change our mission/charter, this question doesn't really matter, but containers do facilitate higher-level and more automated management and introspection. VMs are by nature more opaque and responsible for more of the application lifecycle. However, we may consider a number of projects (e.g., Prometheus) that could be used equally well with either containers or VMs. On DevOps: Joe mentions that developers are incentivized to make their applications production-ready, but one thing that's not made clear enough is that developers are responsible for meeting operational requirements: reliability, availability, scalability, efficiency, liveness and readiness signals, exported metrics, actionable logging, termination/signal handling, self-configuration based on the environment, configuration knobs exposed to operators, compatibility with the production environment, ... Failure to meet these requirements is a bug. Operators are both partners and customers.
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: [cncf-marketing] OSCON Open Container Day OCI/CNCF Panel
Sarah Saul <ssaul@...>
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 6:12 PM, Diane Mueller-Klingspor dmueller@...
wrote:
Sarah Saul Client Services Manager The Linux Foundation (M) 520-245-5185 Skype: srsaul
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: [cncf-marketing] OSCON Open Container Day OCI/CNCF Panel
The panel was not accepted by O'Reilly. I sent an earlier email to the list Diane
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Jonathan Boulle 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
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: [cncf-marketing] OSCON Open Container Day OCI/CNCF Panel
Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
I'm not sure how my name got on there - I won't be attending the conference.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Sarah Saul via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: [cncf-marketing] OSCON Open Container Day OCI/CNCF Panel
Sarah Saul <ssaul@...>
Hi Kiersten, I believe it's a full panel. Diane can confirm if anyone has dropped or if Ben could be a backup. I have the below folks listed for the panel: Chris Aniscyzk, Linux Foundation, Developer Relations Vincent Batts, OCI TDC Member (Red Hat) Patrick Chanzeon, OCI TDC Member (Docker) Jonathan Bouille, CNCF TOC Member (CoreOS & founder of RKT project) Sarah Saul Client Services Manager The Linux Foundation (M) 520-245-5185 Skype: srsaul
On Apr 27, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Kiersten Gaffney <kiersten@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: CNI discussion - actions
alexis richardson
+1
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 19:35 Brian Grant via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: CNI discussion - actions
Brian Grant
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Stefan Junker via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote: Hi, As a next step, for now, if you'd like to create a more neutral brand, I recommend moving the project to its own github org. Practically speaking, that would make the project easier to manage, also.
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: [cncf-marketing] OSCON Open Container Day OCI/CNCF Panel
Kiersten Gaffney <kiersten@...>
Hello Sarah, Please keep myself, Kim and RJ in the loop on Ben's participation at the Open Container Day. Have any further emails gone out about this? Please share. Best, Kiersten ---- Kiersten Gaffney Senior Manager, Events @ Mesosphere Cell: 415-559-3771
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
requests /// no TOC call this week
alexis richardson
All, There will be no TOC call this week, because quite a few people are travelling. A few asks, please: 1. Can we have a vote on Prometheus in the next few weeks? Please speak up if you'd like more discussion. I'll interpret silence as assent ;-) 2. Towards working with more projects, I'm now going to focus on the "how CNCF can help" discussion. Please could people email me with thoughts. 3. Chris A asks if there are comments on the WG proposal. I think this will need further discussion, but it would help to finalise the proposal in the meantime. alexis
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: CNI discussion - actions
alexis richardson
Doug I think the main worry is "ex ante and de jure standards", i.e.: - created ahead of real adoption & maturation of use cases - by a legislature with wide authority I know that Craig liked to say the TOC was like the supreme court (!) for CNCF, but I think we need to be very humble about our reach. I am OK with standards emerging "ex post and de re". After the fact, and as a matter of fact. That doesn't mean we cannot have interop & glue & documents in the CNCF. We just need to figure out how to do that. Carefully. a
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: CNI discussion - actions
On top of what Doug said, I'd like to remind the TOC on what's in the charter currently around projects (section 9): https://cncf.io/governance 9. CNCF Projects (a) It is expected that member companies, and open source community members will bring project assets to the TOC for discussion and inclusion into the CNCF. All such contributions should meet a set criteria created by the TOC and ratified by the Governing Board. The goal is to have an increasing bazaar of projects related to and that integrate with projects already accepted into the CNCF. i. Included in CNCF, under a neutral home for collaboration a. All aspects of the project are governed by the CNCF ii. Associated with the CNCF via an API or specification a. Includes components where the CNCF may offer or enable multiple options iii. Used by the CNCF a. A project or component that is completely licensed under an OSI approved open source license and is well managed and used as a component in the CNCF (c) Existing open source projects should continue to run through their existing technical governance structure to maintain cohesion and velocity. Projects approved by the TOC for inclusion in the CNCF will be ‘lightly’ subject to the Technical Oversight
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Doug Davis via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
CNI discussion - actions
Doug Davis <dug@...>
re: topic "A" - acceptable CNCF projects All, Issues I heard today: 1. would be good to talk about some fundamental assumptions about what we think about standards (which is part of the OCI mandate) - suggest we involve the GB in this. also: there are related topics - service broker, volumes... E.g.: the TOC needs to decide if a project can be "just a spec", or does it need to be "mainly code that just happens to have a spec". 2. invite some CNI stakeholders, not on TOC, to give us the "project point of view" -- eg metaswitch, redhat? 3. perception, brand and timing are issues; would be good to get some more projects on board that aren't 'glue' or 'interface' type things. Summary: So let's separate the discussion: A) type of acceptable work/projects in CNCF vs B) is CNI a good fit. We need to resolve A independently of B, and can get going first on A. But, eg in parallel, I think it would be fair to hear from a CNI lead (or two) who is not on TOC. alexis _______________________________________________
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: CNI discussion - actions
Stefan Junker <stefan.junker@...>
Hi,
I’m one of the maintainers of CNI. I was on the CNCF call yesterday during which understood only TOC members should state their opinion, so I decided to just listen and write down my thoughts afterwards. Although CNI is a small project it has been around for a while, and since I joined, the goal has transitioned away from the initial statement which was still captured in the README. Shortly after the call I submitted a small but significant change [1] which I hope will clarify the position of the project. We, the maintainers, don’t want to make CNI a blessed standard. Instead, we hold great value in the specification that has already allowed many projects to use the flexible plugin system for developing and interconnecting simple to complex container networking solutions. Our hope is that the CNCF provides a stable, vendor-neutral brand and home to foster these values, so that even more developers feel comfortable to help improve the quality of existing code and upstream their plugin code. Thanks for your attention! I will also be happy to answer any questions that the TOC has about the project. Stefan Junker [1]: https://github.com/appc/cni/pull/186
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
an interesting read, about "Cloud Native"
alexis richardson
Hi all, Not too long ago Joe Beda wrote an interesting doc about "Cloud Native". I have his permission to share it, and so I am posting a URL below. I bring this to your attention because it may help us think about how to define "cloud native" for prospective projects and end users. Obviously this is Joe's take on things. What do others think? alexis
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
TOC call: this week & next week
alexis richardson
Hi all, I am going to be on a plane during next week's TOC call. Please could a TOC member volunteer to chair the call next week? Thank-you all for the call yesterday. I wanted to say that I'm really pleased with how we are interacting as a group. Yes, we have already found some things to disagree about! But we are still getting to know each other and figuring out assumptions and expectations. That will take a little time. For me, what is more important is that we seem to have consensus on the priority of establishing a base of *good open source software projects*. Perhaps I am stating the obvious there. Yet we could so easily have picked a different battle to fight first -- something at one remove from focus on the projects. To make sure that CNCF attracts such projects, I'd really like us to focus on the question "How can we help?" Would it be possible to start the ball rolling on this next week? We can return to other topics later, those being: discussion of assumptions around interoperability and 'what can be a project', plus working groups and so on. alexis
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Discuss/Vote: CNCF Working Groups
Here's the proposal PR for WGs in CNCF: The actual simple process: The first proposed WG around the Service Broker is a WIP, waiting for our finalization of the process: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JnjndNwBB9mct91MLofzNrJwew_MJgwPXlULzrKx14Q/edit#heading=h.32tcpqhictr1 Please comment/vote as I'd love to get something moving:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
CNI discussion - actions
alexis richardson
All, Issues I heard today: 1. would be good to talk about some fundamental assumptions about what we think about standards (which is part of the OCI mandate) - suggest we involve the GB in this. also: there are related topics - service broker, volumes... E.g.: the TOC needs to decide if a project can be "just a spec", or does it need to be "mainly code that just happens to have a spec". 2. invite some CNI stakeholders, not on TOC, to give us the "project point of view" -- eg metaswitch, redhat? 3. perception, brand and timing are issues; would be good to get some more projects on board that aren't 'glue' or 'interface' type things. Summary: So let's separate the discussion: A) type of acceptable work/projects in CNCF vs B) is CNI a good fit. We need to resolve A independently of B, and can get going first on A. But, eg in parallel, I think it would be fair to hear from a CNI lead (or two) who is not on TOC. alexis
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
FW: [oci-members] Reminder: Submit a talk for ContainerCon/ContainerCon Japan!
Kenneth Owens (kenowens) <kenowens@...>
Team,
I would like to submit a panel proposal to Containercon on What is the CNCF and What we plan to accomplish.
Anyone interested in being on the Panel?
From: Sarah Saul [mailto:ssaul@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 8:53 AM To: oci-members@... Subject: [oci-members] Reminder: Submit a talk for ContainerCon/ContainerCon Japan!
Hello All,
Just a reminder that the CFP for ContainerCon North America will close on April 26.
Get in your talks while there is still time!
ContainerCon Japan is also open for papers as well. Deadline to submit is May 5th.
Submit here:
http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/containercon-japan/program/cfp
Best, Sarah
--
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---04/20/2016 12:03:18 PM---All, Issues I heard today:
Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---04/20/2016 12:03:18 PM---All, Issues I heard today:
Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---04/20/2016 12:03:18 PM---All, Issues I heard today:
Think before you print.