Date   

Re: What's the point? (or,"What's the Emperor wearing?")

Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
 


I agree with Jessie -- and for whatever it's worth, here were my reasons to be involved with the CNCF during its inception over three years ago:


I expanded on that ~five months later:


Three years later, that's still the appeal for me: serving our industry by serving the open source projects that represent the foundation for cloud-native infrastructure.  I think we have had some successes in that regard -- but not without our share of stumbles.  The conversation this morning was a promising start to a conversation that sorely needs to be had -- and is likely without easy answers.

       - Bryan




On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Jessica Frazelle via Lists.Cncf.Io <me=jessfraz.com@...> wrote:


On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 18:04 Nick Chase <nchase@...> wrote:
First off, please take this in the sprit in which it's intended. It's
not meant to be snarky or argumentative, (though it will probably sound
that way), it's just meant to start a conversation.

I've been thinking a lot about the conversation about working groups
from this morning's meeting, and I think we're missing a fundamental issue.

What I heard was a lot of talk about how "we don't want to be
kingmakers" and "people put more importance on being a CNCF project than
they should".  Well, if being a CNCF project doesn't mean anything ...
why do it?

In my opinion the foundations role should be a space for shared IP.

And I agreed that people are putting too much importance on being in the foundation. You can do open source without a foundation. The foundations role should not be marketing projects and creating non-organic growth but helping the projects have a space to work without worrying about IP or licensing. It should also help the communities of those projects get things they need like money for CI infrastructure or other things and making sure those projects communities are healthy.

thats what a foundation is in imho.


In fact, why have a foundation at all?

If the purpose of the CNCF is just to foster cloud native computing, and
not to validate a project's existence, then why handle projects at all? 
Why not just create standards, or even just recommendations, as W3C
did/does(?).

I guess what I'm saying is that while nobody likes politics -- and
believe me I DESPISE them -- if you're going to have a foundation that
is supposed to mean something, then ... it should mean something.

So my feeling is that we either bite the bullet and get tough about
letting projects in -- even if that means asking them to perhaps work
together, or create a joint API and then manage the API -- or we drop
the pretenses and just create a directory anybody can add themselves to.

See, I told you it would sound snarky, but really, I am only trying to
start the discussion.

Somebody please, tell me what I'm missing here.

----  Nick



--


Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC  511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu



Re: What's the point? (or,"What's the Emperor wearing?")

Joseph Jacks <j@...>
 

I agree with Jessie!

On Sep 18, 2018, at 3:30 PM, Jessica Frazelle via Lists.Cncf.Io <me=jessfraz.com@...> wrote:



On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 18:04 Nick Chase <nchase@...> wrote:
First off, please take this in the sprit in which it's intended. It's
not meant to be snarky or argumentative, (though it will probably sound
that way), it's just meant to start a conversation.

I've been thinking a lot about the conversation about working groups
from this morning's meeting, and I think we're missing a fundamental issue.

What I heard was a lot of talk about how "we don't want to be
kingmakers" and "people put more importance on being a CNCF project than
they should".  Well, if being a CNCF project doesn't mean anything ...
why do it?

In my opinion the foundations role should be a space for shared IP.

And I agreed that people are putting too much importance on being in the foundation. You can do open source without a foundation. The foundations role should not be marketing projects and creating non-organic growth but helping the projects have a space to work without worrying about IP or licensing. It should also help the communities of those projects get things they need like money for CI infrastructure or other things and making sure those projects communities are healthy.

thats what a foundation is in imho.


In fact, why have a foundation at all?

If the purpose of the CNCF is just to foster cloud native computing, and
not to validate a project's existence, then why handle projects at all? 
Why not just create standards, or even just recommendations, as W3C
did/does(?).

I guess what I'm saying is that while nobody likes politics -- and
believe me I DESPISE them -- if you're going to have a foundation that
is supposed to mean something, then ... it should mean something.

So my feeling is that we either bite the bullet and get tough about
letting projects in -- even if that means asking them to perhaps work
together, or create a joint API and then manage the API -- or we drop
the pretenses and just create a directory anybody can add themselves to.

See, I told you it would sound snarky, but really, I am only trying to
start the discussion.

Somebody please, tell me what I'm missing here.

----  Nick



--


Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC  511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu


Re: What's the point? (or,"What's the Emperor wearing?")

Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
 



On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 18:04 Nick Chase <nchase@...> wrote:
First off, please take this in the sprit in which it's intended. It's
not meant to be snarky or argumentative, (though it will probably sound
that way), it's just meant to start a conversation.

I've been thinking a lot about the conversation about working groups
from this morning's meeting, and I think we're missing a fundamental issue.

What I heard was a lot of talk about how "we don't want to be
kingmakers" and "people put more importance on being a CNCF project than
they should".  Well, if being a CNCF project doesn't mean anything ...
why do it?

In my opinion the foundations role should be a space for shared IP.

And I agreed that people are putting too much importance on being in the foundation. You can do open source without a foundation. The foundations role should not be marketing projects and creating non-organic growth but helping the projects have a space to work without worrying about IP or licensing. It should also help the communities of those projects get things they need like money for CI infrastructure or other things and making sure those projects communities are healthy.

thats what a foundation is in imho.


In fact, why have a foundation at all?

If the purpose of the CNCF is just to foster cloud native computing, and
not to validate a project's existence, then why handle projects at all? 
Why not just create standards, or even just recommendations, as W3C
did/does(?).

I guess what I'm saying is that while nobody likes politics -- and
believe me I DESPISE them -- if you're going to have a foundation that
is supposed to mean something, then ... it should mean something.

So my feeling is that we either bite the bullet and get tough about
letting projects in -- even if that means asking them to perhaps work
together, or create a joint API and then manage the API -- or we drop
the pretenses and just create a directory anybody can add themselves to.

See, I told you it would sound snarky, but really, I am only trying to
start the discussion.

Somebody please, tell me what I'm missing here.

----  Nick



--


Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC  511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu


What's the point? (or,"What's the Emperor wearing?")

Nick Chase
 

First off, please take this in the sprit in which it's intended. It's not meant to be snarky or argumentative, (though it will probably sound that way), it's just meant to start a conversation.

I've been thinking a lot about the conversation about working groups from this morning's meeting, and I think we're missing a fundamental issue.

What I heard was a lot of talk about how "we don't want to be kingmakers" and "people put more importance on being a CNCF project than they should".  Well, if being a CNCF project doesn't mean anything ... why do it?

In fact, why have a foundation at all?

If the purpose of the CNCF is just to foster cloud native computing, and not to validate a project's existence, then why handle projects at all?  Why not just create standards, or even just recommendations, as W3C did/does(?).

I guess what I'm saying is that while nobody likes politics -- and believe me I DESPISE them -- if you're going to have a foundation that is supposed to mean something, then ... it should mean something.

So my feeling is that we either bite the bullet and get tough about letting projects in -- even if that means asking them to perhaps work together, or create a joint API and then manage the API -- or we drop the pretenses and just create a directory anybody can add themselves to.

See, I told you it would sound snarky, but really, I am only trying to start the discussion.

Somebody please, tell me what I'm missing here.

----  Nick


Scaling TOC community while minimizing politics

Matt Farina
 

I really liked the honesty around politics, companies (both big and startup), and the ways extending the community can be gamed. It’s great to see reflection on keeping things on track.

I had a few ideas to throw at the wall to see if they or a derivative stick.

1. For new projects, working groups, categories, and analysis of an area we could have a template containing the areas the TOC wants details on and an example of one being filled out. This will lead people who are doing the work in the direction the TOC wants.

For example, with a new working group there appears to be a desire for concrete measurable goals that can be tested for done. A template with an example could illustrate and communicate that.

2. The “cloud native” landscape is exploding. Big companies, startups, and everyone in between in getting going on it. This space is prone to churn. What the CNCF brings in and oversees could be considered separate from an effort to document the entire landscape as it changes. It may be worth completely separating these efforts entirely and not trying to overlap them.

For example, documenting a landscape could be a matter of coming up with criteria for inclusion and then keeping the landscape up to date for things that meet that. Then having a process to catch projects, products, and services that are no longer maintained and pruning them. Defining the category and pruning criteria is the hard part.

Then, separate from the documentation effort, come up with a list of value propositions for both having a project in the CNCF and keeping it under control by some other entity. These can even serve as a checklist to see if a proposed project has it’s goals in the right place when they want to join. Do the CNCFs value props for a project help them in addition to being a cloud native project.


These are just ideas to start a conversation.


-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com




CNCF TOC Meeting: 9/18/2018

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Here's the agenda deck for tomorrow:

We will be covering a backlog of community presentation decisions, reminder on SAFE WG voting and hearing from the netdata community.

See you tomorrow!

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


Re: linus

luke@...
 

wow, times change. +1


On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 10:00 PM Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:
Thanks for sharing; unexpected, but positive.


Richard
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 10:50 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
>
> https://www.lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/16/167
>




Re: linus

Richard Hartmann
 

Thanks for sharing; unexpected, but positive.


Richard

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 10:50 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

https://www.lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/16/167


linus

alexis richardson
 


Revised CNCF Interactive Landscape

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

We've released the biggest ever improvement to the CNCF Interactive Landscape: we now dynamically generate the landscape in real-time in your browser rather than having a graphic artist do so manually once a month.


(Note that this landscape view works better from a desktop browser than a mobile one.)

This also enables some intriguing new views, such as seeing just CNCF-hosted projects, just Apache-hosted ones, or just open source projects:


As before, if you see individual items that should be updated, please open a pull request after reviewing the instructions on https://github.com/cncf/landscape. If you'd like to discuss future enhancements or changes, please join the reference architecture list: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-reference-architecture
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com


Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group

Sree Tummidi <stummidi@...>
 

+1 (non-binding)
Thanks,
Sree Tummidi


Re: [VOTE] Rook moving to incubation

Jonathan Boulle <jon@...>
 

+1 binding 

Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> schrieb am Mo., 10. Sep. 2018, 21:40:

+1 non-binding

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 1:06 PM Sam Lambert <samlambert@...> wrote:
+1 binding.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 1:39 AM, Daniel Bryant <db@...> wrote:
+1 (non-binding) 

Great to see this for a very interesting project!

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:19 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Rook (https://rook.io) has requested to move to the incubation maturity level:

In the time since being accepted to the sandbox, two releases were completed, starting with v0.7 on February 21st and then v0.8 on July 18th. With those releases, Rook extended beyond just orchestration of Ceph and has built a framework of reusable specs, logic and policies for cloud-native storage orchestration of other providers. Operators and CRD types were added for both CockroachDB and Minio in the v0.8 release, initial support for NFS is nearly complete, and other storage providers are also in the works.

The Rook community believes it has fulfilled all the incubation criteria:

Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/rook/rook/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md

Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/rook/rook/blob/master/OWNERS.md.

Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/rook/rook/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:

Releases: https://github.com/rook/rook/releases
Roadmap: https://github.com/rook/rook/blob/master/ROADMAP.md
Contributors: https://github.com/rook/rook/graphs/contributors
Commit activity: https://github.com/rook/rook/graphs/commit-activity
CNCF DevStats: https://rook.devstats.cncf.io/

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/139

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] SAFE (Security) Working Group

jainvipin@...
 

+1 non-binding

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:16 PM, 徐翔轩 <eleven.xu@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding

Thanks & Best Regards,

徐翔轩

----------------------------------------------------



上海得帆信息技术有限公司
  SHANGHAI DEFINESYS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.

E-mail : eleven.xu@definesys.com
Mobile : +86-186-1626-0537
Website:http://www.definesys.com

----------------------------------------------------
 

在 2018年9月11日,03:30,Benjamin Hindman <benh@...> 写道:

+1

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:50 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
A new CNCF Working Group has been proposed (sponsored by Ken Owens):

Secure Access for Everyone (SAFE) Working Group will explore secure access, policy control and safety for operators, administrators, developers, and end-users across the cloud native ecosystem

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/146

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





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

Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere

FOLLOW USTwitterLinkedInFacebookYouTube
 



Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group

徐翔轩 <eleven.xu@...>
 

+1 non-binding

Thanks & Best Regards,

徐翔轩

----------------------------------------------------



上海得帆信息技术有限公司
  SHANGHAI DEFINESYS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.

E-mail : eleven.xu@...
Mobile : +86-186-1626-0537
Website:http://www.definesys.com

----------------------------------------------------
 

在 2018年9月11日,03:30,Benjamin Hindman <benh@...> 写道:

+1

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:50 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
A new CNCF Working Group has been proposed (sponsored by Ken Owens):

Secure Access for Everyone (SAFE) Working Group will explore secure access, policy control and safety for operators, administrators, developers, and end-users across the cloud native ecosystem

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/146

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





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

Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere

FOLLOW USTwitterLinkedInFacebookYouTube
 


Re: [VOTE] Rook moving to incubation

Erin Boyd
 

+1 non-binding


On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 1:06 PM Sam Lambert <samlambert@...> wrote:
+1 binding.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 1:39 AM, Daniel Bryant <db@...> wrote:
+1 (non-binding) 

Great to see this for a very interesting project!

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:19 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Rook (https://rook.io) has requested to move to the incubation maturity level:

In the time since being accepted to the sandbox, two releases were completed, starting with v0.7 on February 21st and then v0.8 on July 18th. With those releases, Rook extended beyond just orchestration of Ceph and has built a framework of reusable specs, logic and policies for cloud-native storage orchestration of other providers. Operators and CRD types were added for both CockroachDB and Minio in the v0.8 release, initial support for NFS is nearly complete, and other storage providers are also in the works.

The Rook community believes it has fulfilled all the incubation criteria:

Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/rook/rook/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md

Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/rook/rook/blob/master/OWNERS.md.

Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/rook/rook/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:

Releases: https://github.com/rook/rook/releases
Roadmap: https://github.com/rook/rook/blob/master/ROADMAP.md
Contributors: https://github.com/rook/rook/graphs/contributors
Commit activity: https://github.com/rook/rook/graphs/commit-activity
CNCF DevStats: https://rook.devstats.cncf.io/

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/139

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] SAFE (Security) Working Group

Benjamin Hindman
 

+1

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:50 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
A new CNCF Working Group has been proposed (sponsored by Ken Owens):

Secure Access for Everyone (SAFE) Working Group will explore secure access, policy control and safety for operators, administrators, developers, and end-users across the cloud native ecosystem

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/146

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




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

Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere

Follow Us Twitter LinkedIn Facebook YouTube
 


Re: [VOTE] Rook moving to incubation

Sam Lambert <samlambert@...>
 

+1 binding.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 1:39 AM, Daniel Bryant <db@...> wrote:
+1 (non-binding) 

Great to see this for a very interesting project!

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:19 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Rook (https://rook.io) has requested to move to the incubation maturity level:

In the time since being accepted to the sandbox, two releases were completed, starting with v0.7 on February 21st and then v0.8 on July 18th. With those releases, Rook extended beyond just orchestration of Ceph and has built a framework of reusable specs, logic and policies for cloud-native storage orchestration of other providers. Operators and CRD types were added for both CockroachDB and Minio in the v0.8 release, initial support for NFS is nearly complete, and other storage providers are also in the works.

The Rook community believes it has fulfilled all the incubation criteria:

Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/rook/rook/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md

Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/rook/rook/blob/master/OWNERS.md.

Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/rook/rook/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:

Releases: https://github.com/rook/rook/releases
Roadmap: https://github.com/rook/rook/blob/master/ROADMAP.md
Contributors: https://github.com/rook/rook/graphs/contributors
Commit activity: https://github.com/rook/rook/graphs/commit-activity
CNCF DevStats: https://rook.devstats.cncf.io/

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/139

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] SAFE (Security) Working Group

Sam Lambert <samlambert@...>
 

+1 binding.

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
+1 binding

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018, 10:57 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
+1 (binding)

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 06:50
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group

A new CNCF Working Group has been proposed (sponsored by Ken Owens):

Secure Access for Everyone (SAFE) Working Group will explore secure access, policy control and safety for operators, administrators, developers, and end-users across the cloud native ecosystem

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/146

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] Rook moving to incubation

Daniel Bryant
 

+1 (non-binding) 

Great to see this for a very interesting project!

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:19 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Rook (https://rook.io) has requested to move to the incubation maturity level:

In the time since being accepted to the sandbox, two releases were completed, starting with v0.7 on February 21st and then v0.8 on July 18th. With those releases, Rook extended beyond just orchestration of Ceph and has built a framework of reusable specs, logic and policies for cloud-native storage orchestration of other providers. Operators and CRD types were added for both CockroachDB and Minio in the v0.8 release, initial support for NFS is nearly complete, and other storage providers are also in the works.

The Rook community believes it has fulfilled all the incubation criteria:

Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/rook/rook/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md

Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/rook/rook/blob/master/OWNERS.md.

Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/rook/rook/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:

Releases: https://github.com/rook/rook/releases
Roadmap: https://github.com/rook/rook/blob/master/ROADMAP.md
Contributors: https://github.com/rook/rook/graphs/contributors
Commit activity: https://github.com/rook/rook/graphs/commit-activity
CNCF DevStats: https://rook.devstats.cncf.io/

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/139

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


2019 KubeCon + CloudNativeCon sponsorship prospectus

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

I'm pleased to distribute the (attached) sponsor guide for the three 2019 KubeCon + CloudNativeCon events:

Barcelona: May 20-23, 2019
Shanghai: June 26-28, 2019
San Diego: November 18-21, 2019

Sponsors select their booth locations in the order that they return a signed contract. Please contact sponsor@... with questions or to get a contract. You can also book a time to speak to Kathy at https://calendly.com/kosweiler.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com

5141 - 5160 of 7546