Hi all

Apologies, there will be an updated Agenda tomorrow. Want to discuss some TOC business.  Will be asking project presentations to go on hold

Alexis

On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, 21:02 Chris Aniszczyk, <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Here's the agenda deck for tomorrow: 

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Xt1xNSN8_pGuDLl5H8xEYToFss7VoIm7GBG0e_HrsLc/edit?ts=5bae170b#slide=id.g25ca91f87f_0_0

We will be hearing from the keycloak project on top of welcoming Cheryl to the CNCF who will be working on ways to improve our end user ecosystem.

See everyone tomorrow!

--

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

Here's the agenda deck for tomorrow: 

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Xt1xNSN8_pGuDLl5H8xEYToFss7VoIm7GBG0e_HrsLc/edit?ts=5bae170b#slide=id.g25ca91f87f_0_0

We will be hearing from the keycloak project on top of welcoming Cheryl to the CNCF who will be working on ways to improve our end user ecosystem.

See everyone tomorrow!

--

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

would like to remind TOC member to vote on WG proposition :)

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:24 AM Sree Tummidi <stummidi@...> wrote:

+1 (non-binding)
Thanks,
Sree Tummidi

--

Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Standard Engineer

IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line

Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd

Email: huangzhipeng@...

Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen

(Previous)

Research Assistant

Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2

University of California, Irvine

Email: zhipengh@...

Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402

OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado

The etcd project is being proposed as an INCUBATION level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC: https://github.com/coreos/etcd

etcd is a consistent distributed key-value store, designed to hold small amounts of data that can fit entirely in memory and mainly used as a separate coordination service for other distributed systems like Kubernetes. It is used by a variety organizations and projects: https://github.com/coreos/etcd/blob/master/Documentation/production-users.md

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full project proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/143

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

+1 (non-binding)
Thanks,
Sree Tummidi

+1 non binding

---

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Ayrat Khayretdinov <akhayretdinov@...>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 6:58:14 PM
To: Chris Aniszczyk
Cc: CNCF TOC
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] etcd project proposal (incubation)

 

+1 non binding

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 10:57 Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

The etcd project is being proposed as an INCUBATION level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC: https://github.com/coreos/etcd

etcd is a consistent distributed key-value store, designed to hold small amounts of data that can fit entirely in memory and mainly used as a separate coordination service for other distributed systems like Kubernetes. It is used by a variety organizations and projects: https://github.com/coreos/etcd/blob/master/Documentation/production-users.md

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full project proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/143

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 etcd project is being proposed as an INCUBATION level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC: https://github.com/coreos/etcd

etcd is a consistent distributed key-value store, designed to hold small amounts of data that can fit entirely in memory and mainly used as a separate coordination service for other distributed systems like Kubernetes. It is used by a variety organizations and projects: https://github.com/coreos/etcd/blob/master/Documentation/production-users.md

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full project proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/143

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

+1 (non-binding)

Best,
Sam Batschelet

+1 (non-binding)

Cheers,
Michael

--
Michael Hausenblas, Developer Advocate
OpenShift by Red Hat
Mobile: +353 86 0215164 | Twitter: @mhausenblas
http://openshift.com | http://mhausenblas.info

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Reply: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: 21 August 2018 at 16:57:45
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject:  [cncf-toc] [VOTE] etcd project proposal (incubation)

> The etcd project is being proposed as an INCUBATION level CNCF project,
> sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC: https://github.com/coreos/etcd
>
> etcd is a consistent distributed key-value store, designed to hold small
> amounts of data that can fit entirely in memory and mainly used as a
> separate coordination service for other distributed systems like
> Kubernetes. It is used by a variety organizations and projects:
> https://github.com/coreos/etcd/blob/master/Documentation/production-users.md
>
> Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full project proposal
> located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/143
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

FYI: at Fluent Bit project (part of Fluentd) we started using IssueHunt I/O mostly to get more help on issues.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:42 AM Matt Klein via Lists.Cncf.Io <mklein=lyft.com@...> wrote:

Bounties on bug fixes comes to mind. 

+1. Bug bounties, pay for regular third party security audits, pay to have a white hat on staff doing security work on behalf of projects full time, etc.

 Pay the maintainers and high contributors who don't have other means to make money.

Yes. For certain types of projects such as critical libraries where it's very difficult/impossible to make money maintaining, CNCF should consider adopting those projects and helping pay maintainers to work on them, even if part time.

Even for projects in which there are other means to make money, some of us don't necessarily *want* to make money that way. We do it because, well, that is how we make money. There are real benefits for an organization like the CNCF providing fellowships to allow maintainers to remain neutral. I've written more about this here for those of you that haven't seen it:  https://medium.com/@mattklein123/the-broken-economics-of-oss-5a1b31fc0182. The recent Linus salary discussion  complicates discussion of this topic which is unfortunate because I think it's one that we increasingly need to have, but hopefully as some time passes we can come back to it.

Such as

All of the things Alexis points out. I would like to see more work on improving the GH experience around things like DCO, bots, issue management, CI, etc. I suspect there is easily a full time tooling job across all of CNCF. CI and negotiating with the vendors for the right amount of concurrency and machine types takes a lot of time. More dedicated help with docs perhaps by sourcing, hiring, and nurturing multiple full time tech writers. Basically, all of this. 

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:03 AM Jessica Frazelle via Lists.Cncf.Io <me=jessfraz.com@...> wrote:

Bounties on bug fixes comes to mind. 

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:01 Jessica Frazelle via Lists.Cncf.Io <me=jessfraz.com@...> wrote:

Pay the maintainers and high contributors who don't have other means to make money.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 05:13 Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

If you have ideas on how we can help projects more, please give us ideas here or take a look at the servicedesk where we document the services CNCF offers for projects: https://github.com/cncf/servicedesk

This was recently updated and we appreciate any feedback.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 2:08 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Jessie & Matt

Thank-you for raising and elaborating on the topic of how CNCF helps projects.  

The topic was aired (again) at the last GB offsite, whose slides were shared a couple of months ago.  Here they are again as ref: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BFEUAnbsboyRx9qh3jyRjN-V7ukZtA9-OTjIbknUBn4/edit#slide=id.g3e55b0b2a9_0_0

Personally I do not want "CNCF could do more to help projects" to be chiselled on my gravestone.  I think the TOC, Contributors and project leads can ALL show some direction here, and I think we have to do so.

And so - Jessie & Matt & anyone else!

Please could you help me & Chris do something more about this.

Let's (again) make a list of what we think Incubated & Graduated projects really need, by talking with the project leads & others.  This list needs to be in a shared public doc.  Not everyone wants the same things, but there are themes.  

Such as:

* docs & project management 

* community management

* project services (hosting, CI, etc)

* github wrangling

* community / contributor summits

* AR/PR help (esp: for projects that don't have 1-2 companies driving them)

* maintainer psychotherapy & creche ;-)

WDYT?

a

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 5:20 AM Matt Klein via Lists.Cncf.Io <mklein=lyft.com@...> wrote:

Then when
those projects need help with things the foundation can offer, money
for infrastructure, a place for shared IP it seems like it would be
obvious that they should be projects in the foundation, of course they
need to qualify etc.

Beyond neutral IP, I agree this is the most important thing the foundation provides, and IMHO CNCF does not do enough of it (there are so many things that high velocity projects need I could go on and on and on). Unfortunately, this is the area in which decisions will need to be made. There are limited funds and they will need to be allocated across the increasing portfolio of projects in the foundation, so clearly some decision criteria will need to be developed (whether based on graduation level or something else) to decide how funds are allocated and for what purpose (and unfortunately this in and of itself will involve politics).

I'm happy to see this conversation happening, as I ultimately I do believe that some level of choosing "favorites" is going to be required for the foundation to realize its full benefit to its most popular member projects.

 

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Jessica Frazelle via Lists.Cncf.Io <me=jessfraz.com@...> wrote:

Yeah that was what I meant with shared IP.

I think there are ways to limit the effect of gamification of the
system and I think you all have done a great job of this so far
especially with the format for sandbox projects....

I think this is more a culture problem in that, if people see the
leaders of projects and in the community pushing for more projects to
be added to the foundation at a very past pace then we have lost a
culture of "making the best tool of high quality for the job" and we
lost a culture of innovation.... we merely have the culture of
"winning". Which I am still unsure as to what people seek to win but I
digress.

Regardless, I think the right measures are in place with the sandbox
to limit kingmaking. I think the focus should now be put on promoting
(and I don't mean marketing) but leading the ecosystem to focus on
building tools that innovate technology in the cloud native space with
a high importance on quality and fostering collaboration. Then when
those projects need help with things the foundation can offer, money
for infrastructure, a place for shared IP it seems like it would be
obvious that they should be projects in the foundation, of course they
need to qualify etc.

Just my 2 cents.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:12 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
>
> In addition to what Jess said, a foundation provides a vendor neutral (or as close as we can get) location for a project. Competitors on products and services have a place to work together on projects that are not controlled by a single vendor in its governance.
>
> I think this is one of the biggest reasons for a foundation. Not everything needs this. But, some foundational things benefit from it.
>
> Then there is being frank on the politics. People are trying to game the system for career advancement, getting money for startups, more tag lines in marketing campaigns, for bragging rights, and more. In this highly competitive marketplace with money being thrown to the degree it is, I don’t know if we can avoid this all together.
>
> But, we can put a target on being useful and building useful things. For this I mean Jakob Nielsen’s definition whose gist is useful = usability + utility. Projects and people can be promoted for the useful.
>
> --
> Matt Farina
> mattfarina.com
>
>
>
>



--


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

--

Matt Klein

Software Engineer

mklein@...

https://calendly.com/mattklein123

--

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

--

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

--

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

--

Matt Klein

Software Engineer

mklein@...

https://calendly.com/mattklein123

--

Eduardo Silva

Open Source, Treasure Data

http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 

There was a lot of discussion regarding the sandbox (especially with the k8s incubator dissolving https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/95#issuecomment-376940995) but the idea is that there was a need for a place for experimentation so projects can grow into high quality incubating/graduated projects as this process takes time if it does at all (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md#caveat-utilitor):

"Encourage public visibility of experiments or other early work that can add value to the CNCF mission and build the ingredients of a successful Incubation level project"

All sandbox projects get reviewed on an annual basis and may archived from the foundation. I expect to potentially see our first projects archived over the next 12 months but it's hard to predict the future.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Alena Prokharchyk <alena@...> wrote:

Sandbox is a great model that enforces collaboration and cloud native ecosystem growth. But it feels that the main CNCF goal of "fostering a community around a constellation of high-quality projects" in a way contradicts the current sandbox rule - "CNCF Sandbox projects can stay in the sandbox indefinitely". Indefinite membership - even with limited CNCF investment - is not sustainable without raising a quality bar at the acceptance level and beyond. Also the reasons why the sandbox candidate is found technically interesting/innovative, what advantages it has over similar projects (having a great community qualifies too) or/and why it is considered to be a high risk, can be delivered to the CNCF community with more clarify to reduce the chances of kingmaking blame

--

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

Sandbox is a great model that enforces collaboration and cloud native ecosystem growth. But it feels that the main CNCF goal of "fostering a community around a constellation of high-quality projects" in a way contradicts the current sandbox rule - "CNCF Sandbox projects can stay in the sandbox indefinitely". Indefinite membership - even with limited CNCF investment - is not sustainable without raising a quality bar at the acceptance level and beyond. Also the reasons why the sandbox candidate is found technically interesting/innovative, what advantages it has over similar projects (having a great community qualifies too) or/and why it is considered to be a high risk, can be delivered to the CNCF community with more clarify to reduce the chances of kingmaking blame

Bounties on bug fixes comes to mind. 

+1. Bug bounties, pay for regular third party security audits, pay to have a white hat on staff doing security work on behalf of projects full time, etc.

 Pay the maintainers and high contributors who don't have other means to make money.

Yes. For certain types of projects such as critical libraries where it's very difficult/impossible to make money maintaining, CNCF should consider adopting those projects and helping pay maintainers to work on them, even if part time.

Even for projects in which there are other means to make money, some of us don't necessarily *want* to make money that way. We do it because, well, that is how we make money. There are real benefits for an organization like the CNCF providing fellowships to allow maintainers to remain neutral. I've written more about this here for those of you that haven't seen it:  https://medium.com/@mattklein123/the-broken-economics-of-oss-5a1b31fc0182. The recent Linus salary discussion  complicates discussion of this topic which is unfortunate because I think it's one that we increasingly need to have, but hopefully as some time passes we can come back to it.

Such as

All of the things Alexis points out. I would like to see more work on improving the GH experience around things like DCO, bots, issue management, CI, etc. I suspect there is easily a full time tooling job across all of CNCF. CI and negotiating with the vendors for the right amount of concurrency and machine types takes a lot of time. More dedicated help with docs perhaps by sourcing, hiring, and nurturing multiple full time tech writers. Basically, all of this. 

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:03 AM Jessica Frazelle via Lists.Cncf.Io <me=jessfraz.com@...> wrote:

Bounties on bug fixes comes to mind. 

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:01 Jessica Frazelle via Lists.Cncf.Io <me=jessfraz.com@...> wrote:

Pay the maintainers and high contributors who don't have other means to make money.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 05:13 Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

If you have ideas on how we can help projects more, please give us ideas here or take a look at the servicedesk where we document the services CNCF offers for projects: https://github.com/cncf/servicedesk

This was recently updated and we appreciate any feedback.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 2:08 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Jessie & Matt

Thank-you for raising and elaborating on the topic of how CNCF helps projects.  

The topic was aired (again) at the last GB offsite, whose slides were shared a couple of months ago.  Here they are again as ref: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BFEUAnbsboyRx9qh3jyRjN-V7ukZtA9-OTjIbknUBn4/edit#slide=id.g3e55b0b2a9_0_0

Personally I do not want "CNCF could do more to help projects" to be chiselled on my gravestone.  I think the TOC, Contributors and project leads can ALL show some direction here, and I think we have to do so.

And so - Jessie & Matt & anyone else!

Please could you help me & Chris do something more about this.

Let's (again) make a list of what we think Incubated & Graduated projects really need, by talking with the project leads & others.  This list needs to be in a shared public doc.  Not everyone wants the same things, but there are themes.  

Such as:

* docs & project management 

* community management

* project services (hosting, CI, etc)

* github wrangling

* community / contributor summits

* AR/PR help (esp: for projects that don't have 1-2 companies driving them)

* maintainer psychotherapy & creche ;-)

WDYT?

a

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 5:20 AM Matt Klein via Lists.Cncf.Io <mklein=lyft.com@...> wrote:

Then when
those projects need help with things the foundation can offer, money
for infrastructure, a place for shared IP it seems like it would be
obvious that they should be projects in the foundation, of course they
need to qualify etc.

Beyond neutral IP, I agree this is the most important thing the foundation provides, and IMHO CNCF does not do enough of it (there are so many things that high velocity projects need I could go on and on and on). Unfortunately, this is the area in which decisions will need to be made. There are limited funds and they will need to be allocated across the increasing portfolio of projects in the foundation, so clearly some decision criteria will need to be developed (whether based on graduation level or something else) to decide how funds are allocated and for what purpose (and unfortunately this in and of itself will involve politics).

I'm happy to see this conversation happening, as I ultimately I do believe that some level of choosing "favorites" is going to be required for the foundation to realize its full benefit to its most popular member projects.

 

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Jessica Frazelle via Lists.Cncf.Io <me=jessfraz.com@...> wrote:

Yeah that was what I meant with shared IP.

I think there are ways to limit the effect of gamification of the
system and I think you all have done a great job of this so far
especially with the format for sandbox projects....

I think this is more a culture problem in that, if people see the
leaders of projects and in the community pushing for more projects to
be added to the foundation at a very past pace then we have lost a
culture of "making the best tool of high quality for the job" and we
lost a culture of innovation.... we merely have the culture of
"winning". Which I am still unsure as to what people seek to win but I
digress.

Regardless, I think the right measures are in place with the sandbox
to limit kingmaking. I think the focus should now be put on promoting
(and I don't mean marketing) but leading the ecosystem to focus on
building tools that innovate technology in the cloud native space with
a high importance on quality and fostering collaboration. Then when
those projects need help with things the foundation can offer, money
for infrastructure, a place for shared IP it seems like it would be
obvious that they should be projects in the foundation, of course they
need to qualify etc.

Just my 2 cents.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:12 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
>
> In addition to what Jess said, a foundation provides a vendor neutral (or as close as we can get) location for a project. Competitors on products and services have a place to work together on projects that are not controlled by a single vendor in its governance.
>
> I think this is one of the biggest reasons for a foundation. Not everything needs this. But, some foundational things benefit from it.
>
> Then there is being frank on the politics. People are trying to game the system for career advancement, getting money for startups, more tag lines in marketing campaigns, for bragging rights, and more. In this highly competitive marketplace with money being thrown to the degree it is, I don’t know if we can avoid this all together.
>
> But, we can put a target on being useful and building useful things. For this I mean Jakob Nielsen’s definition whose gist is useful = usability + utility. Projects and people can be promoted for the useful.
>
> --
> Matt Farina
> mattfarina.com
>
>
>
>



--


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

--

Matt Klein

Software Engineer

mklein@...

https://calendly.com/mattklein123

--

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

--

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

--

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

--

Matt Klein

Software Engineer

mklein@...

https://calendly.com/mattklein123