Date   

Re: [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation

Alex Chircop
 

+1 non-binding

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Tuesday, 17 April 2018 at 15:56
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation

 

Prometheus (https://prometheus.io) was the second project accepted in CNCF and has sustained an amazing growth of contributors and users since joining CNCF. We are moving forward with the graduation request from the Prometheus team after performing a review of the project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

 

The Prometheus team believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

 

- A well defined governance model: https://prometheus.io/governance

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://prometheus.io (see users end of page)
- Have a healthy number of committers: They have at least 17 committers from 10 different organizations: 
https://github.com/juliusv/toc/blob/6304e5807537402e5f7fd7a5b86864223cae5e0d/reviews/graduation-prometheus.md#have-committers-from-at-least-two-organizations
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: They have had  850+ unique contributors with a total of 12k+ commits so far: 
https://prometheus.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

 

--

Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation

rkillen@...
 

+1 non-binding.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Prometheus (https://prometheus.io) was the second project accepted in CNCF and has sustained an amazing growth of contributors and users since joining CNCF. We are moving forward with the graduation request from the Prometheus team after performing a review of the project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

The Prometheus team believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- A well defined governance model: https://prometheus.io/governance
- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://prometheus.io (see users end of page)
- Have a healthy number of committers: They have at least 17 committers from 10 different organizations: https://github.com/juliusv/toc/blob/6304e5807537402e5f7fd7a5b86864223cae5e0d/reviews/graduation-prometheus.md#have-committers-from-at-least-two-organizations
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: They have had  850+ unique contributors with a total of 12k+ commits so far: https://prometheus.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



Re: [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

+1 non-binding


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

"Chris Aniszczyk" ---04/17/2018 11:06:38 AM---Prometheus (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__prometheus.io&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJO

From: "Chris Aniszczyk" <caniszczyk@...>
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 04/17/2018 11:06 AM
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation
Sent by: cncf-toc@...





Prometheus (https://prometheus.io) was the second project accepted in CNCF and has sustained an amazing growth of contributors and users since joining CNCF. We are moving forward with the graduation request from the Prometheus team after performing a review of the project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

The Prometheus team believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- A well defined governance model: https://prometheus.io/governance
- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://prometheus.io (see users end of page)
- Have a healthy number of committers: They have at least 17 committers from 10 different organizations: https://github.com/juliusv/toc/blob/6304e5807537402e5f7fd7a5b86864223cae5e0d/reviews/graduation-prometheus.md#have-committers-from-at-least-two-organizations
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: They have had  850+ unique contributors with a total of 12k+ commits so far: https://prometheus.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719




Re: [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation

Lee Calcote
 

+1 non-binding.

On Apr 17, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Ihor Dvoretskyi <ihor.dvoretskyi@...> wrote:

+1 non-binding.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Prometheus (https://prometheus.io) was the second project accepted in CNCF and has sustained an amazing growth of contributors and users since joining CNCF. We are moving forward with the graduation request from the Prometheus team after performing a review of the project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

The Prometheus team believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- A well defined governance model: https://prometheus.io/governance
- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://prometheus.io (see users end of page)
- Have a healthy number of committers: They have at least 17 committers from 10 different organizations: https://github.com/juliusv/toc/blob/6304e5807537402e5f7fd7a5b86864223cae5e0d/reviews/graduation-prometheus.md#have-committers-from-at-least-two-organizations
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: They have had  850+ unique contributors with a total of 12k+ commits so far: https://prometheus.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719






Re: [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation

Ihor Dvoretskyi
 

+1 non-binding.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Prometheus (https://prometheus.io) was the second project accepted in CNCF and has sustained an amazing growth of contributors and users since joining CNCF. We are moving forward with the graduation request from the Prometheus team after performing a review of the project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

The Prometheus team believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- A well defined governance model: https://prometheus.io/governance
- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://prometheus.io (see users end of page)
- Have a healthy number of committers: They have at least 17 committers from 10 different organizations: https://github.com/juliusv/toc/blob/6304e5807537402e5f7fd7a5b86864223cae5e0d/reviews/graduation-prometheus.md#have-committers-from-at-least-two-organizations
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: They have had  850+ unique contributors with a total of 12k+ commits so far: https://prometheus.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



Re: [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation

Sam Lambert <samlambert@...>
 

+1 binding.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Jonathan Boulle <jon@...> wrote:
+1 binding

On 17 April 2018 at 16:57, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 binding


On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Chris Aniszczyk
<caniszczyk@...g> wrote:
> Prometheus (https://prometheus.io) was the second project accepted in CNCF
> and has sustained an amazing growth of contributors and users since joining
> CNCF. We are moving forward with the graduation request from the Prometheus
> team after performing a review of the project:
> https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88
>
> The Prometheus team believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:
>
> - A well defined governance model: https://prometheus.io/governance
> - Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of
> sufficient scale and quality: https://prometheus.io (see users end of page)
> - Have a healthy number of committers: They have at least 17 committers from
> 10 different organizations:
> https://github.com/juliusv/toc/blob/6304e5807537402e5f7fd7a5b86864223cae5e0d/reviews/graduation-prometheus.md#have-committers-from-at-least-two-organizations
> - Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged
> contributions: They have had  850+ unique contributors with a total of 12k+
> commits so far: https://prometheus.devstats.cncf.io
>
> Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located
> here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88
>
> Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate
> non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!
>
> --
> Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
>






Re: [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation

Jonathan Boulle <jon@...>
 

+1 binding

On 17 April 2018 at 16:57, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 binding


On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Chris Aniszczyk
<caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Prometheus (https://prometheus.io) was the second project accepted in CNCF
> and has sustained an amazing growth of contributors and users since joining
> CNCF. We are moving forward with the graduation request from the Prometheus
> team after performing a review of the project:
> https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88
>
> The Prometheus team believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:
>
> - A well defined governance model: https://prometheus.io/governance
> - Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of
> sufficient scale and quality: https://prometheus.io (see users end of page)
> - Have a healthy number of committers: They have at least 17 committers from
> 10 different organizations:
> https://github.com/juliusv/toc/blob/6304e5807537402e5f7fd7a5b86864223cae5e0d/reviews/graduation-prometheus.md#have-committers-from-at-least-two-organizations
> - Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged
> contributions: They have had  850+ unique contributors with a total of 12k+
> commits so far: https://prometheus.devstats.cncf.io
>
> Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located
> here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88
>
> Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate
> non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!
>
> --
> Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
>





Re: [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation

Julius Volz
 

+1 (non-binding)

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 5:02 PM, Yong Tang <ytang@...> wrote:

+1 (non-binding)




From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 7:56:07 AM
To: CNCF TOC
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation
 
Prometheus (https://prometheus.io) was the second project accepted in CNCF and has sustained an amazing growth of contributors and users since joining CNCF. We are moving forward with the graduation request from the Prometheus team after performing a review of the project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

The Prometheus team believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- A well defined governance model: https://prometheus.io/governance
- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://prometheus.io (see users end of page)
- Have a healthy number of committers: They have at least 17 committers from 10 different organizations: https://github.com/juliusv/toc/blob/6304e5807537402e5f7fd7a5b86864223cae5e0d/reviews/graduation-prometheus.md#have-committers-from-at-least-two-organizations
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: They have had  850+ unique contributors with a total of 12k+ commits so far: https://prometheus.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



Re: [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation

Yong Tang <ytang@...>
 

+1 (non-binding)




From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 7:56:07 AM
To: CNCF TOC
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation
 
Prometheus (https://prometheus.io) was the second project accepted in CNCF and has sustained an amazing growth of contributors and users since joining CNCF. We are moving forward with the graduation request from the Prometheus team after performing a review of the project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

The Prometheus team believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- A well defined governance model: https://prometheus.io/governance
- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://prometheus.io (see users end of page)
- Have a healthy number of committers: They have at least 17 committers from 10 different organizations: https://github.com/juliusv/toc/blob/6304e5807537402e5f7fd7a5b86864223cae5e0d/reviews/graduation-prometheus.md#have-committers-from-at-least-two-organizations
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: They have had  850+ unique contributors with a total of 12k+ commits so far: https://prometheus.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation

John Belamaric
 

+1 non-binding

On Apr 17, 2018, at 10:56 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Prometheus (https://prometheus.io) was the second project accepted in CNCF and has sustained an amazing growth of contributors and users since joining CNCF. We are moving forward with the graduation request from the Prometheus team after performing a review of the project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

The Prometheus team believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- A well defined governance model: https://prometheus.io/governance
- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://prometheus.io (see users end of page)
- Have a healthy number of committers: They have at least 17 committers from 10 different organizations: https://github.com/juliusv/toc/blob/6304e5807537402e5f7fd7a5b86864223cae5e0d/reviews/graduation-prometheus.md#have-committers-from-at-least-two-organizations
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: They have had  850+ unique contributors with a total of 12k+ commits so far: https://prometheus.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation

Thangavelu, Kapil
 

+1 non-binding


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 10:56:07 AM
To: CNCF TOC
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation
 
Prometheus (https://prometheus.io) was the second project accepted in CNCF and has sustained an amazing growth of contributors and users since joining CNCF. We are moving forward with the graduation request from the Prometheus team after performing a review of the project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

The Prometheus team believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- A well defined governance model: https://prometheus.io/governance
- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://prometheus.io (see users end of page)
- Have a healthy number of committers: They have at least 17 committers from 10 different organizations: https://github.com/juliusv/toc/blob/6304e5807537402e5f7fd7a5b86864223cae5e0d/reviews/graduation-prometheus.md#have-committers-from-at-least-two-organizations
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: They have had  850+ unique contributors with a total of 12k+ commits so far: https://prometheus.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The information transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer.


Re: [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation

Justin Cormack
 

+1 (non binding)



On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Prometheus (https://prometheus.io) was the second project accepted in CNCF and has sustained an amazing growth of contributors and users since joining CNCF. We are moving forward with the graduation request from the Prometheus team after performing a review of the project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

The Prometheus team believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- A well defined governance model: https://prometheus.io/governance
- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://prometheus.io (see users end of page)
- Have a healthy number of committers: They have at least 17 committers from 10 different organizations: https://github.com/juliusv/toc/blob/6304e5807537402e5f7fd7a5b86864223cae5e0d/reviews/graduation-prometheus.md#have-committers-from-at-least-two-organizations
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: They have had  850+ unique contributors with a total of 12k+ commits so far: https://prometheus.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



Re: [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation

alexis richardson
 

+1 binding


On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Chris Aniszczyk
<caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Prometheus (https://prometheus.io) was the second project accepted in CNCF
and has sustained an amazing growth of contributors and users since joining
CNCF. We are moving forward with the graduation request from the Prometheus
team after performing a review of the project:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

The Prometheus team believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- A well defined governance model: https://prometheus.io/governance
- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of
sufficient scale and quality: https://prometheus.io (see users end of page)
- Have a healthy number of committers: They have at least 17 committers from
10 different organizations:
https://github.com/juliusv/toc/blob/6304e5807537402e5f7fd7a5b86864223cae5e0d/reviews/graduation-prometheus.md#have-committers-from-at-least-two-organizations
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged
contributions: They have had 850+ unique contributors with a total of 12k+
commits so far: https://prometheus.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate
non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


[VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Prometheus (https://prometheus.io) was the second project accepted in CNCF and has sustained an amazing growth of contributors and users since joining CNCF. We are moving forward with the graduation request from the Prometheus team after performing a review of the project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

The Prometheus team believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- A well defined governance model: https://prometheus.io/governance
- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://prometheus.io (see users end of page)
- Have a healthy number of committers: They have at least 17 committers from 10 different organizations: https://github.com/juliusv/toc/blob/6304e5807537402e5f7fd7a5b86864223cae5e0d/reviews/graduation-prometheus.md#have-committers-from-at-least-two-organizations
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: They have had  850+ unique contributors with a total of 12k+ commits so far: https://prometheus.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: TOC Agenda for 4/17/2018

alexis richardson
 

thanks Chris!

all --- please DO shout for agenda items this week and during May 2018


On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:39 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The agenda is posted for tomorrow's TOC meeting:

We will be covering the TOC election results, kubecon/cloudnativecon, prometheus graduation vote, safe/security wg proposal and a community presentation from telepresence.

Note: we will also be cancelling the TOC meeting on May 1st and instead hosting office hours for TOC members at the CNCF booth during the conference.

I look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow and in Copenhagen in a couple of weeks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


TOC Agenda for 4/17/2018

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The agenda is posted for tomorrow's TOC meeting:

We will be covering the TOC election results, kubecon/cloudnativecon, prometheus graduation vote, safe/security wg proposal and a community presentation from telepresence.

Note: we will also be cancelling the TOC meeting on May 1st and instead hosting office hours for TOC members at the CNCF booth during the conference.

I look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow and in Copenhagen in a couple of weeks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Updating Cloud Native definition

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

Brian and Justin, could I please ask you to try to drive this toward closure:


My goal is to have the CNCF governing board vote to delete Schedule A from the charter in the near future and replace it with a short definition approved by the TOC.

We'll also replace the definition at the bottom left of the Cloud Native Trail Map:
https://github.com/cncf/landscape#trail-map
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:18 AM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
Another take:

Cloud-Native technologies are designed to operate with high velocity at scale in dynamic and distributed environments, such as public clouds and software-defined data centers. Such Cloud-Native applications, services, platforms, and infrastructure are engineered to provide and/or enable self service and high levels of automation through techniques such as abstraction, operability, observability, resilience, agility, elasticity, and loose coupling. They utilize approaches such as declarative APIs and microservices, and include mechanisms such as application containers and service meshes.

The mission of the Cloud Native Computing Foundation is to advance the state of the art and drive adoption of Cloud-Native technologies by fostering an ecosystem of open-source projects that are portable, vendor-neutral, and interoperable through well defined interfaces.

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@lists.cncf.io> wrote:
Another go:

The mission of the Cloud Native Computing Foundation is to drive the adoption of technologies designed for modern dynamic, distributed environments, such as public clouds and private data centers. Cloud-native applications, services, platforms, and infrastructure are engineered to provide and/or enable operability, observability, elasticity, resilience, and agility. The Foundation seeks to foster an ecosystem interoperable Cloud-Native technologies and to advance the state of the art by fostering open-source projects that embody and/or support these attributes:


  • Operability: Expose control of application/system lifecycle.

  • Observability: Provide meaningful signals for observing state, health, and performance.

  • Elasticity: Grow and shrink to fit in available resources and to meet fluctuating demand.

  • Resilience: Fast automatic recovery from failures.

  • Agility: Fast deployment, iteration, and reconfiguration.


Example technologies and patterns that can be used to implement the above attributes, such as declarative configuration, APIs, application containers, and service meshes, are discussed in more detail in Schedule A, below.




On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...> wrote:
Do you mind if we incorporate some/all of them?

​Not at all. Please do! I shared them​
 
​so they could be incorporated​

I prefer the engineered attributes:
  • Operable
  • Observable
  • Elastic
  • Resilient
  • Agile
Over the end goals:
  • Scalable
  • Durable
  • Continuous
I agree. Many things can claim to be "scalable" but every design decision has trade-offs. How you get to scalability is what matters most to differentiate cloud native from other approaches. Some of the words might be interpreted as an end goal instead of an attribute (e.g. agile) so it may be hard to make a clear distinction. Deciding on specific attributes will be the hard part.

Maybe we can find more specific and descriptive German words since it has a word for pretty much everything (j/k)


--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...ncf.io> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...> wrote:

I’m also more aligned with Justin’s definition, the way I usually describe Cloud-Native architecture in my posts is that it provides:

 

  • Durability — services must sustain component failures
  • Elasticity — services and resources grow or shrink to meet demand
  • Continuity — versions are upgraded while the service is running

 

I think declarative may be the way to achieve those, but can be added explicitly

Containers, unikernels, serverless, foo… are ways to implement this


As much as I'm a strong proponent of declarative configuration and APIs (and declarative APIs :-)), I agree that they are implementation techniques. I think we should provides examples of such techniques, but probably not in the mission statement.
 

 

Yaron

iguazio, CTO

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Wednesday, 31 January 2018 at 8:30
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"

 

 

Wow, I really like Justin's (and Kris's) definitions.  As I read Brian's proposed attributes, it occurred to me how much software we have that is indisputably cloud native and yet doesn't exhibit the attributes as described.  I think part of the problem is that it's too focused on artifact attributes and not on the principles behind those attributes.  Justin's definitions are more expansive in that regard and (from my perspective, anyway), a better fit for us...

 

        - Bryan

 

 

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:42 PM, Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...> wrote:

This is just my opinion. Feedback is encouraged. I did a lot of thinking about definitions when writing Cloud Native Infrastructure with Kris Nova last year.

 

In the book I define cloud native infrastructure as

 

Cloud native infrastructure is infrastructure that is hidden behind useful abstractions, controlled by APIs, managed by software, and has the purpose of running applications.

 

​The definitions for the CNCF are not just about running infrastructure and also impact how applications are designed and managed.

 

I defined cloud native applications as

 

A cloud native application is engineered to run on a platform and is designed for resiliency, agility, operability, and observability. Resiliency embraces failures instead of trying to prevent them; it takes advantage of the dynamic nature of running on a platform. Agility allows for fast deployments and quick iterations. Operability

​ ​

adds control of application life cycles from inside the application instead of relying on external processes and monitors. Observability provides information to answer questions about application state.

 

A possible elevator pitch could be something like.

 

Declarative, dynamic, resilient, and scalable.​

 

For me these expand to mean

 

Declarative APIs backed by infrastructure as software (not static code) that converge on a desired state. This applies to infrastructure, policy, application deployments, everything!

Dynamic because of the high rate of change and making frequent deployments (applications and infrastructure). This also can be used to describe service discovery as well as testing patterns and service mesh style routing.

Resilient to changes and discovery of environments. Microservices is one pattern for this but it also can include other options. Resiliency enables reliability which is the single most important factor of complex systems (or so I've read from numerous sources)

Scalable means applications need to be packaged in a way to scale horizontally instead of vertically. Ideally this would be containers but it can also be what I'd call "accidental containers" for things like lambda, app engine, or any PaaS where you don't explicitly package your code into an executable unit.


 

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com

 

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...ncf.io> wrote:

Good point. I'll think about that (and am open to suggestions). "Automation" is a bit too terse, and not differentiated from the numerous automation systems of the past.

 

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Bob Wise <bob@...> wrote:

Although the new definition is deeper and more inclusive, I think it is much less approachable especially to an less technical audience.

 

The "container packaged, dynamically managed, micro service oriented" was (and is) a great elevator pitch. It's simple, and has really helped give

those in organizations trying to sell upward on transformation paths great clear air cover. I think we would all agree that containers incorporate

many of the approaches indicated in the bits below. 

 

If we are going to replace those points (rather than enhance them) can we work on three simple bullets, or something that helps the entry?

 

-Bob

 

 

 

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...ncf.io> wrote:

The CNCF Charter contains a definition of "Cloud Native" that was very Kubernetes-focused. This definition proved to be inadequate during a number of recent discussions, particularly those around "cloud-native storage" in the Storage WG. I would like to update the definition. My first attempt follows. 

 

Existing charter text:

 

The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm that is optimized for modern distributed systems environments capable of scaling to tens of thousands of self healing multi-tenant nodes.

Cloud native systems will have the following properties:

(a) Container packaged. Running applications and processes in software containers as an isolated unit of application deployment, and as a mechanism to achieve high levels of resource isolation. Improves overall developer experience, fosters code and component reuse and simplify operations for cloud native applications.

(b) Dynamically managed. Actively scheduled and actively managed by a central orchestrating process. Radically improve machine efficiency and resource utilization while reducing the cost associated with maintenance and operations.

(c) Micro-services oriented. Loosely coupled with dependencies explicitly described (e.g. through service endpoints). Significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications. The foundation will shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management, and to make the technology ubiquitous and easily available through reliable interfaces.

Proposed text:

 

The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm, dubbed Cloud-Native computing, designed to facilitate a high velocity of change to applications, services, and infrastructure at scale in modern distributed-systems environments such as public clouds and private datacenters, while providing high degrees of security, reliability, and availability. To that end, the Foundation seeks to shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management and to foster an ecosystem of Cloud-Native technologies that are interoperable through well defined interfaces, and which are portable, vendor-neutral, and ubiquitous.

 

The following are some attributes of Cloud Native:

  • Cloud-native services should enable self-service. For instance, cloud-native resources should be self-provisioned from an elastic pool that for typical, on-demand usage appears to be of unlimited capacity.
  • Cloud-native environments are dynamic. They necessitate self-healing and adaptability of applications and services running in such environments.
  • Cloud-native applications, services, and infrastructure facilitate high-velocity management at scale via continuous automation, which is enabled by externalizing control, supporting dynamic configuration, and providing observability. In particular, resource usage is measured to enable optimal and efficient use.
  • Cloud-native services and infrastructure are decoupled from applications, with seamless and transparent consumption experiences.

 

Non-exhaustive, non-exclusive examples of mechanisms and approaches that promote Cloud-Native approaches include:

  • Immutable infrastructure: Replace individual components and resources rather than updating them in place, which rejuvenates the components/resources, mitigates configuration drift, and facilitates repeatability with predictability, which is essential for high-velocity operations at scale.
  • Application containers: Running applications and processes in containers as units of application deployment isolates them from their operational environments as well as from each other, facilitates higher levels of resource isolation, fosters component reuse, enables portability, increases observability, and standardizes lifecycle management.
  • Microservices: Loosely coupled microservices significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications, particularly for larger organizations.
  • Service meshes: Service meshes decouple service access from the provider topology, which reduces the risk of operational changes, and support inter-component observability.
  • Declarative configuration: Intent-oriented configuration lets users focus on the What rather than the How, and reserves latitude for automated systems achieve the desired state.
  • Event-driven execution: Enables agile, reactive automated processes, and facilitates systems integration.

 

As new Cloud-Native techniques and technologies emerge, they will be incorporated into the Foundation’s portfolio of recommended practices, approaches, and projects.

 

 

 

 

 







[RESULT] linkerd moving to incubation (PASSED)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The vote for linkerd to move to incubation has passed: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86

+1 binding TOC votes (6/9):

non-binding community votes:
+1 Jeyappragash JJ: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1897

Thanks to all who voted and voiced an opinion.

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Please take the Kubernetes Application Survey

alexis richardson
 

CNCF TOC,

Trying to get this survey to as many as possible hence posting here.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>
Date: Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:40 AM
Subject: Take the Kubernetes Application Survey
To: Kubernetes developer/contributor discussion
<kubernetes-dev@...>, kubernetes-sig-apps
<kubernetes-sig-apps@...>, kubernetes-wg-app-def
<kubernetes-wg-app-def@...>,
cncf-kubernetes-helm@...


The survey is available at https://goo.gl/forms/ht61kKETiqVR103v1

Backstory: For the past several months the App Def WG has been looking
at how people build applications to run on Kubernetes and tools to
work with them. In order to better understand end users a survey has
been created to learn from a broader audience. The questions have been
gathered from a variety of sources, including sub-project teams, and
the resulting data will be shared with the community at large.

If you build applications for Kubernetes or operates applications on
Kubernetes we ask that you take a few minutes to let us know what you
think.

If you would, please share this survey with your networks so we can
get input from a wide audience range.

Thank you.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "kubernetes-sig-apps" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to kubernetes-sig-apps+unsubscribe@....
To post to this group, send email to kubernetes-sig-apps@....
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-sig-apps/CAMPAG2oYEfgWxt%3DHd7PQTE7TO%2BkSqWN-xc%2BzEjWxBBrm44drZg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

alexis richardson
 

+1 binding

After some thought.

I believe linkerd has met the incubation criteria.  That is not hard to see.

I am concerned that linkerd needs more momentum to sustain high quality development both from the buoyant folks and from the community.  I don't think that overlap with envoy is the primary concern here.  My main worry is with the overall roadmap and plan - long term what problems linkerd needs to solve well and under what assumptions.

I'm voting +1 because I believe William, Oliver and co understand this is an issue and will work on it as they continue with Conduit in parallel.

Let's see how things go!


On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 00:36 Jonathan Boulle, <jon@...> wrote:
+1 binding 

Camille Fournier <skamille@...> schrieb am Di., 3. Apr. 2018, 23:06:
+1 binding

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...> wrote:
+1 binding

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:47 AM Ken Owens <kenchristineowens@...> wrote:
+1 Binding

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:56 AM, William Morgan <william@...> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
I assume the maintainers govern all linkerd repositories, since other repositories do not contain MAINTAINERS.md files.
 
Yes.

I see (super-)maintainers can be added via nomination and vote. It may be useful to develop a particular contribution bar for (super-)maintainers, such as number of commits or duration on the project or number of subsystems they have worked on, so contributors know roughly what to strive for and existing (super-)maintainers have guidelines for nominating new members of those groups.

Great suggestion. With the current model we aimed for the simplest, most basic structure that still captured what we thought was important (some maintainers are experts in a subsystem; some maintainers are experts in the overall workings). But we'll almost definitely need to refine this over time.

Thinking about this further, it would've been really useful to have a library of vetted / "good" governance models to read through when we were doing this. Perhaps this is something the CNCF could provide as a resource for projects?

Clearly we do care about contributor diversity, so that's something we should explore whether/how CNCF could help improve that in the future.

This is also very much in my interest and I'd love any help, though I'm not sure what the CNCF would be able to do about this in practice. In Linkerd's case, at least, contributorship only really happened after there was significant adoption.




--
Benjamin Hindman
Founder of Mesosphere and Co-Creator of Apache Mesos

Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere

Follow Us Twitter LinkedIn Facebook YouTube
 


5761 - 5780 of 7729