Date   

Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Anthony Skipper <anthony@...>
 

I would agree with double blind.  But a max of 1 talk per vendor might also go a long way. 


On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:47 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

On the call yesterday, Dan asked me to send out my thoughts on double-blind reviewing.  My e-mail quickly turned into a blog entry:


Something that I probably didn't highlight well enough in there is Kathryn McKinley's excellent piece on double-blind review:


There are certainly lots of ways to attack this problem, but I view double-blind as an essential piece -- but probably not sufficient on its own.

         - Bryan


Thoughts on KubeCon

Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
 


On the call yesterday, Dan asked me to send out my thoughts on double-blind reviewing.  My e-mail quickly turned into a blog entry:


Something that I probably didn't highlight well enough in there is Kathryn McKinley's excellent piece on double-blind review:


There are certainly lots of ways to attack this problem, but I view double-blind as an essential piece -- but probably not sufficient on its own.

         - Bryan


Re: Moving to written proposals for projects over presentations

alexis richardson
 

thanks Michael, good write up.

I really like the overall thinking here.  We are not raising the bar for adoption, but we are asking for clarity of thought and planning for early projects.  That will make it much easier for the community & foundation to help them (if we can...) and to measure success.


On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:36 PM Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...> wrote:
To add a bit of color on the Falco Sandbox proposal and presentation. 

I started with the proposal document first because I felt that the problem we were trying to solve may not necessarily be well understood if we only did a presentation. I also wanted to have any of the questions/requirements for a Sandbox project answered ahead of the presentation. That way any TOC members could be confident that we met the requirements and we weren't wasting anyone's time. If questions or confusion came up, I had the proposal document to refer people back to. Lastly, I wanted people to clearly understand where we were fitting in the Cloud Native ecosystem, and the value we were providing. I felt like that would be harder to get across in the presentation. Personally, I felt that these were the barriers that we needed to overcome to get the TOC sponsors required. 

From the proposal I built the presentation, which felt like it naturally came out of the proposal. Each section became a slide (or two), and we had a much more clear story to tell on the slides as it was right there in the document as well. The proposal document also gave us a much more clear story to tell when we presented to the TOC.  

I'm not sure if most projects present first then write the proposal, but if not, it might be useful to flip it around. 

Michael



On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:10 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
I agree requiring the writing up front (instead of after the presentation) can be useful, here are some good examples imho:

Falco (sandbox)

Rook (sandbox->incubation)

If we want a specific template happy to hear ideas, we can put it in the TOC repo.


On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:06 AM Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
Chris pointed out in chat that groups already are writing up docs for their proposals. However, the problem in my mind is that first we see a slide deck style presentation, then it is followed by a written doc.

I can't speak for Bob, but as someone who heavily adopted Amazon-style paper writing over presentations for much of my internal team, I far prefer reading thoroughly-written docs to watching slide shows. Right now, the details that we get in a lot of the proposals we vote on are not nearly as thorough as what we see in the presentations, and if we tried to replace the presentations with the proposal docs, we would not have much to go on. 

A typical design doc that I would review would have information like:
Summary
Project goals (possibly including user scenarios this is aimed at addressing)
Project non-goals
High-level design
Roadmap

There's no one exact way to write one, but if we want to move to a writing-driven review process at least for sandbox projects, we should agree on more questions we want answered as part of the doc and length recommendations (and possibly restrictions). I feel like this doc is going to be a hybrid product/tech design doc, so if there are any product managers who want to chime in with further suggestions I'm all ears.

C




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


Re: Moving to written proposals for projects over presentations

Michael Ducy
 

To add a bit of color on the Falco Sandbox proposal and presentation. 

I started with the proposal document first because I felt that the problem we were trying to solve may not necessarily be well understood if we only did a presentation. I also wanted to have any of the questions/requirements for a Sandbox project answered ahead of the presentation. That way any TOC members could be confident that we met the requirements and we weren't wasting anyone's time. If questions or confusion came up, I had the proposal document to refer people back to. Lastly, I wanted people to clearly understand where we were fitting in the Cloud Native ecosystem, and the value we were providing. I felt like that would be harder to get across in the presentation. Personally, I felt that these were the barriers that we needed to overcome to get the TOC sponsors required. 

From the proposal I built the presentation, which felt like it naturally came out of the proposal. Each section became a slide (or two), and we had a much more clear story to tell on the slides as it was right there in the document as well. The proposal document also gave us a much more clear story to tell when we presented to the TOC.  

I'm not sure if most projects present first then write the proposal, but if not, it might be useful to flip it around. 

Michael



On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:10 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
I agree requiring the writing up front (instead of after the presentation) can be useful, here are some good examples imho:

Falco (sandbox)

Rook (sandbox->incubation)

If we want a specific template happy to hear ideas, we can put it in the TOC repo.


On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:06 AM Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
Chris pointed out in chat that groups already are writing up docs for their proposals. However, the problem in my mind is that first we see a slide deck style presentation, then it is followed by a written doc.

I can't speak for Bob, but as someone who heavily adopted Amazon-style paper writing over presentations for much of my internal team, I far prefer reading thoroughly-written docs to watching slide shows. Right now, the details that we get in a lot of the proposals we vote on are not nearly as thorough as what we see in the presentations, and if we tried to replace the presentations with the proposal docs, we would not have much to go on. 

A typical design doc that I would review would have information like:
Summary
Project goals (possibly including user scenarios this is aimed at addressing)
Project non-goals
High-level design
Roadmap

There's no one exact way to write one, but if we want to move to a writing-driven review process at least for sandbox projects, we should agree on more questions we want answered as part of the doc and length recommendations (and possibly restrictions). I feel like this doc is going to be a hybrid product/tech design doc, so if there are any product managers who want to chime in with further suggestions I'm all ears.

C




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


Re: Moving to written proposals for projects over presentations

Davanum Srinivas
 

Camille,

If we are looking for prior art to build templates on, the ASF incubator has a template [1], examples of proposals are at [2][3]. 

I like the sections in there on why the project wants to come to ASF, and the risks too.

Thanks,
Dims


On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:06 PM Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
Chris pointed out in chat that groups already are writing up docs for their proposals. However, the problem in my mind is that first we see a slide deck style presentation, then it is followed by a written doc.

I can't speak for Bob, but as someone who heavily adopted Amazon-style paper writing over presentations for much of my internal team, I far prefer reading thoroughly-written docs to watching slide shows. Right now, the details that we get in a lot of the proposals we vote on are not nearly as thorough as what we see in the presentations, and if we tried to replace the presentations with the proposal docs, we would not have much to go on. 

A typical design doc that I would review would have information like:
Summary
Project goals (possibly including user scenarios this is aimed at addressing)
Project non-goals
High-level design
Roadmap

There's no one exact way to write one, but if we want to move to a writing-driven review process at least for sandbox projects, we should agree on more questions we want answered as part of the doc and length recommendations (and possibly restrictions). I feel like this doc is going to be a hybrid product/tech design doc, so if there are any product managers who want to chime in with further suggestions I'm all ears.

C




--
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims


Re: Moving to written proposals for projects over presentations

Chris Aniszczyk
 

I agree requiring the writing up front (instead of after the presentation) can be useful, here are some good examples imho:

Falco (sandbox)

Rook (sandbox->incubation)

If we want a specific template happy to hear ideas, we can put it in the TOC repo.


On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:06 AM Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
Chris pointed out in chat that groups already are writing up docs for their proposals. However, the problem in my mind is that first we see a slide deck style presentation, then it is followed by a written doc.

I can't speak for Bob, but as someone who heavily adopted Amazon-style paper writing over presentations for much of my internal team, I far prefer reading thoroughly-written docs to watching slide shows. Right now, the details that we get in a lot of the proposals we vote on are not nearly as thorough as what we see in the presentations, and if we tried to replace the presentations with the proposal docs, we would not have much to go on. 

A typical design doc that I would review would have information like:
Summary
Project goals (possibly including user scenarios this is aimed at addressing)
Project non-goals
High-level design
Roadmap

There's no one exact way to write one, but if we want to move to a writing-driven review process at least for sandbox projects, we should agree on more questions we want answered as part of the doc and length recommendations (and possibly restrictions). I feel like this doc is going to be a hybrid product/tech design doc, so if there are any product managers who want to chime in with further suggestions I'm all ears.

C




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


Moving to written proposals for projects over presentations

Camille Fournier
 

Chris pointed out in chat that groups already are writing up docs for their proposals. However, the problem in my mind is that first we see a slide deck style presentation, then it is followed by a written doc.

I can't speak for Bob, but as someone who heavily adopted Amazon-style paper writing over presentations for much of my internal team, I far prefer reading thoroughly-written docs to watching slide shows. Right now, the details that we get in a lot of the proposals we vote on are not nearly as thorough as what we see in the presentations, and if we tried to replace the presentations with the proposal docs, we would not have much to go on. 

A typical design doc that I would review would have information like:
Summary
Project goals (possibly including user scenarios this is aimed at addressing)
Project non-goals
High-level design
Roadmap

There's no one exact way to write one, but if we want to move to a writing-driven review process at least for sandbox projects, we should agree on more questions we want answered as part of the doc and length recommendations (and possibly restrictions). I feel like this doc is going to be a hybrid product/tech design doc, so if there are any product managers who want to chime in with further suggestions I'm all ears.

C



Re: TOC Agenda 10/2/2018

Quinton Hoole
 

I’ll be boarding a plane at 8AM, so I probably won’t be on the call today.

Q

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # C2-27

Email: quinton.hoole@...   ID#Q00403160


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of alexis richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 02:43
To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] TOC Agenda 10/2/2018

I have updated the Agenda


On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, 22:19 alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:
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: 


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


Re: TOC Agenda 10/2/2018

Richard Hartmann
 

I won't have time to listen in on the call, but I like what I am
seeing. Thanks Alexis and everyone else.

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:43 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

I have updated the Agenda


On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, 22:19 alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:

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


Re: TOC Agenda 10/2/2018

alexis richardson
 

I have updated the Agenda


On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, 22:19 alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:
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: 


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


Re: TOC Agenda 10/2/2018

alexis richardson
 

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: 


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


TOC Agenda 10/2/2018

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Here's the agenda deck for tomorrow: 


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


Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group

Tom Keiser
 

+1 (non-binding)

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 2:36 AM Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@...> wrote:
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
Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen

(Previous)
Research Assistant
Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
University of California, Irvine
Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402

OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado


[RESULT] Rook moving to incubation (PASSED)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The vote for Rook moving to the incubation maturity level has been approved: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/139

https://www.cncf.io/blog/2018/09/25/toc-votes-to-move-rook/

+1 non-binding community votes:

Thanks all!

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


Re: [VOTE] etcd project proposal (incubation)

Lee Calcote
 

+1 (non-binding)

On Aug 21, 2018, at 9:57 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> 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


Re: [VOTE] etcd project proposal (incubation)

Aviv Laufer
 

+1 (non-binding)


On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:57 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> 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

--

Aviv Laufer
| DoiT International
phone: +972-54-5365536
email: aviv@...
Follow me:linkedintwittermediumgithub


Re: [VOTE] etcd project proposal (incubation)

Suresh Krishnan
 

+1 (non-binding)

On Sep 25, 2018, at 1:55 AM, Aparna Sinha via Lists.Cncf.Io <apsinha=google.com@...> wrote:

+1 non-binding

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <alena@...> wrote:
+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







-- 
Aparna Sinha
Group Product Manager
Kubernetes

650-283-6086 (m)



Re: [VOTE] SAFE (Security) Working Group

Zhipeng Huang
 

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
Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen

(Previous)
Research Assistant
Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
University of California, Irvine
Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402

OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado


Re: [VOTE] etcd project proposal (incubation)

Aparna Sinha
 

+1 non-binding

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <alena@...> wrote:

+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




--
Aparna Sinha
Group Product Manager
Kubernetes

650-283-6086 (m)


Re: [VOTE] etcd project proposal (incubation)

Alena Prokharchyk
 

+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@...> 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

4881 - 4900 of 7334