Date   

Re: DRAFT slides for TOC meeting tomorrow

NASSAUR, DOUGLAS C <dn283x@...>
 

I'm almost done with draft one of the periodic table of cloud native elements for you guys to throw rocks at. We should then align with ref arch   

Regards, Doug

On Jul 20, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:



On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

hmm I guess it depends on the audience then.

Yes.

 

I might agree that from an app developer perspective the points of interop in the old pict might not be of great interest, but from a CNCF project perspective, and as someone working on the projects that make up the CNCF family of projects, I actually think that might be critical as that shows where in the overall picture we might be missing some community focus on projects in that space.

When Ken and I created this stack, we first analysed all the projects that we could think of, that are in the space.  I want to share this info ASAP, but need to spend an hour cleaning it up.

 

Perhaps we need both?

I think the stack marketecture is of limited value unless backed up by:

1 -- detailed breakdowns of each layer's concerns into subcategories (eg orchestrator); and insofar as it exists any internal structure (eg relating orchestrator to container).

2 -- example projects for each subcategory; eg. "kubernetes is an orchestrator", collectively forming a market landscape 

We'd love help mapping the 'old' stack concepts into this model, as a proving exercise.

 



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

<graycol.gif>Alexis Richardson ---07/20/2016 08:11:32 AM---Doug, On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
To: Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Date: 07/20/2016 08:11 AM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] DRAFT slides for TOC meeting tomorrow





Doug,


On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
    On the new reference architecture picture I have a few comments/questions:
    1 - what is driving the need for a new one rather than tweaking the existing one?

IMHO the old one is quite hard to understand, especially for developers who might use CNCF projects.  

This is an attempt to simplify the picture somewhat.  At the end of the day most developers care about CNCF's main concerns: containers, runtime platforms, core services and ancillary tooling, and how they relate to each other, and to apps in general.


 
    2 - I actually prefer the old one. I like that it (abstractly) mentions most of the key pieces of the puzzle - e.g. the image registry and networking - things the new one doesn't touch on.

I think the old one is really abstract -- much too abstract -- and contains extra info, eg about all the interop surfaces, which are unlikely to be seen or used by many developers.

Networking *is* in the stack -- it's part of the runtime layer.  This is covered in the "detail" presentation of the stack that Ken showed two weeks ago.

Registries are part of app dev.

a




 



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: next steps on "opening up the cluster"

Donaldson, Jonathan <jonathan.donaldson@...>
 

To be clear. The cluster is open to all CNCF members. Submit the request as listed below, and the governance committee will respond and facilitate. 


Thank you,

 

Jonathan Donaldson

VP/GM, Software Defined Infrastructure Group
Intel, Datacenter Solutions Group
M: 919.744.1915 - @jdonalds - jonathan.donaldson@...

EA: angela.johnson@...


On Jul 20, 2016, at 9:24 AM, Solomon Hykes via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

This would be very useful for the Docker developers as well! They would love to have access too, would that be ok?

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

yes it could


On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, 17:04 Diane Mueller-Klingspor, <dmueller@...> wrote:
All,

The Fedora team has been asking for access to the cncf cluster for some testing of their Fedora cloud projects. Could this "opening" up include them as a potential guest on the cluster? 

Diane Mueller 
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift
@openshiftcommon
(604) 765 3635


On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Have the folks apply for cluster access here by creating an issue and filling out the template:

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all,

Thanks for supporting Camille's idea on widening the availability of
the CNCF Cluster to more open source projects!

Towards NEXT STEPS:

1) Camille please let ZK team know the answer is Yes.  What is needed next?

2) Dan & Chris --- what does CNCF need to do, in order to open this
up?  Do we want to publish info on our website for example?

3) Please could TOC people who want to help or "get involved" speak up
on this thread.

a



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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--
Kind Regards,

Diane Mueller
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift
@openshiftcommons

We have more in Common than you know, learn more at http://commons.openshift.org

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: next steps on "opening up the cluster"

Jason Mendenhall
 

I think it's important to ensure that we don't end up with projects scattered across multiple locations.

The objective should always be to put all projects on the cluster.  In my opinion, it's one of our strengths as an organization.

We currently have a multi-tenant cloud environment for provisioning VMs and a section where dedicated hardware can be leveraged.

We have contemplated the idea that we should provide $0/timed access to the multi-tenant space "the CNCF cloud" to all members.  In essence, you get a login and off you go and all dedicated hardware projects would follow the process Chris outlined.

Are we deviating from that approach?  Our we missing some execution steps to opening it up?  Does the cluster committee need to assemble to discuss how we might do this?

I've been out for a couple of weeks so I may be out of the loop.  If any of this is redundant, apologies from the clueless guy.

Jason M.
702.333.6570


On Jul 20, 2016, at 12:23 PM, NASSAUR, DOUGLAS C via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

I've proposed a "reference architecture" environment people could experience by "renting" time (at $0) to illustrate cloud native vs traditional virtualization approaches like openstack. Several of us have created and would donate the illustrative solution. 

Regards, Doug

On Jul 20, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Solomon Hykes via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

This would be very useful for the Docker developers as well! They would love to have access too, would that be ok?

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

yes it could


On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, 17:04 Diane Mueller-Klingspor, <dmueller@...> wrote:
All,

The Fedora team has been asking for access to the cncf cluster for some testing of their Fedora cloud projects. Could this "opening" up include them as a potential guest on the cluster? 

Diane Mueller 
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift
@openshiftcommon
(604) 765 3635


On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Have the folks apply for cluster access here by creating an issue and filling out the template:

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all,

Thanks for supporting Camille's idea on widening the availability of
the CNCF Cluster to more open source projects!

Towards NEXT STEPS:

1) Camille please let ZK team know the answer is Yes.  What is needed next?

2) Dan & Chris --- what does CNCF need to do, in order to open this
up?  Do we want to publish info on our website for example?

3) Please could TOC people who want to help or "get involved" speak up
on this thread.

a



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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--
Kind Regards,

Diane Mueller
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift
@openshiftcommons

We have more in Common than you know, learn more at http://commons.openshift.org

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

This email message, its chain, and any attachments: (a) may include proprietary information, trade secrets, confidential information and/or other protected information ("Confidential Information") which are hereby labeled as Confidential for protection purposes, (b) is sent to you in confidence with a reasonable expectation of privacy, (c) may be protected by confidentiality agreements requiring this notice and/or identification, and (d) is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by unauthorized persons. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or by replying to this message. Please then delete this message, any attachments, chains, copies or portions from your system(s). Thank you.

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

This email message, its chain, and any attachments: (a) may include proprietary information, trade secrets, confidential information and/or other protected information ("Confidential Information") which are hereby labeled as Confidential for protection purposes, (b) is sent to you in confidence with a reasonable expectation of privacy, (c) may be protected by confidentiality agreements requiring this notice and/or identification, and (d) is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by unauthorized persons. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or by replying to this message. Please then delete this message, any attachments, chains, copies or portions from your system(s). Thank you.


Re: next steps on "opening up the cluster"

NASSAUR, DOUGLAS C <dn283x@...>
 

I've proposed a "reference architecture" environment people could experience by "renting" time (at $0) to illustrate cloud native vs traditional virtualization approaches like openstack. Several of us have created and would donate the illustrative solution. 

Regards, Doug

On Jul 20, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Solomon Hykes via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

This would be very useful for the Docker developers as well! They would love to have access too, would that be ok?

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

yes it could


On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, 17:04 Diane Mueller-Klingspor, <dmueller@...> wrote:
All,

The Fedora team has been asking for access to the cncf cluster for some testing of their Fedora cloud projects. Could this "opening" up include them as a potential guest on the cluster? 

Diane Mueller 
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift
@openshiftcommon
(604) 765 3635


On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Have the folks apply for cluster access here by creating an issue and filling out the template:

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all,

Thanks for supporting Camille's idea on widening the availability of
the CNCF Cluster to more open source projects!

Towards NEXT STEPS:

1) Camille please let ZK team know the answer is Yes.  What is needed next?

2) Dan & Chris --- what does CNCF need to do, in order to open this
up?  Do we want to publish info on our website for example?

3) Please could TOC people who want to help or "get involved" speak up
on this thread.

a



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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--
Kind Regards,

Diane Mueller
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift
@openshiftcommons

We have more in Common than you know, learn more at http://commons.openshift.org

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: next steps on "opening up the cluster"

Diane Mueller
 

i sense a CNCF Cloud in the works ;-)

Diane

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Solomon Hykes <solomon.hykes@...> wrote:
This would be very useful for the Docker developers as well! They would love to have access too, would that be ok?


On Wednesday, July 20, 2016, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

yes it could


On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, 17:04 Diane Mueller-Klingspor, <dmueller@...> wrote:
All,

The Fedora team has been asking for access to the cncf cluster for some testing of their Fedora cloud projects. Could this "opening" up include them as a potential guest on the cluster? 

Diane Mueller 
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift
@openshiftcommon


On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Have the folks apply for cluster access here by creating an issue and filling out the template:

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all,

Thanks for supporting Camille's idea on widening the availability of
the CNCF Cluster to more open source projects!

Towards NEXT STEPS:

1) Camille please let ZK team know the answer is Yes.  What is needed next?

2) Dan & Chris --- what does CNCF need to do, in order to open this
up?  Do we want to publish info on our website for example?

3) Please could TOC people who want to help or "get involved" speak up
on this thread.

a



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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--
Kind Regards,

Diane Mueller
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift
@openshiftcommons

We have more in Common than you know, learn more at http://commons.openshift.org




--
Kind Regards,

Diane Mueller
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift
@openshiftcommons

We have more in Common than you know, learn more at http://commons.openshift.org


Re: next steps on "opening up the cluster"

Solomon Hykes
 

This would be very useful for the Docker developers as well! They would love to have access too, would that be ok?


On Wednesday, July 20, 2016, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

yes it could


On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, 17:04 Diane Mueller-Klingspor, <dmueller@...> wrote:
All,

The Fedora team has been asking for access to the cncf cluster for some testing of their Fedora cloud projects. Could this "opening" up include them as a potential guest on the cluster? 

Diane Mueller 
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift
@openshiftcommon
(604) 765 3635


On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Have the folks apply for cluster access here by creating an issue and filling out the template:

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all,

Thanks for supporting Camille's idea on widening the availability of
the CNCF Cluster to more open source projects!

Towards NEXT STEPS:

1) Camille please let ZK team know the answer is Yes.  What is needed next?

2) Dan & Chris --- what does CNCF need to do, in order to open this
up?  Do we want to publish info on our website for example?

3) Please could TOC people who want to help or "get involved" speak up
on this thread.

a



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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--
Kind Regards,

Diane Mueller
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift
@openshiftcommons

We have more in Common than you know, learn more at http://commons.openshift.org


Re: next steps on "opening up the cluster"

alexis richardson
 

yes it could


On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, 17:04 Diane Mueller-Klingspor, <dmueller@...> wrote:
All,

The Fedora team has been asking for access to the cncf cluster for some testing of their Fedora cloud projects. Could this "opening" up include them as a potential guest on the cluster? 

Diane Mueller 
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift
@openshiftcommon
(604) 765 3635


On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Have the folks apply for cluster access here by creating an issue and filling out the template:

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all,

Thanks for supporting Camille's idea on widening the availability of
the CNCF Cluster to more open source projects!

Towards NEXT STEPS:

1) Camille please let ZK team know the answer is Yes.  What is needed next?

2) Dan & Chris --- what does CNCF need to do, in order to open this
up?  Do we want to publish info on our website for example?

3) Please could TOC people who want to help or "get involved" speak up
on this thread.

a



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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--
Kind Regards,

Diane Mueller
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift
@openshiftcommons

We have more in Common than you know, learn more at http://commons.openshift.org


Re: next steps on "opening up the cluster"

Diane Mueller
 

All,

The Fedora team has been asking for access to the cncf cluster for some testing of their Fedora cloud projects. Could this "opening" up include them as a potential guest on the cluster? 

Diane Mueller 
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift
@openshiftcommon
(604) 765 3635


On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Have the folks apply for cluster access here by creating an issue and filling out the template:

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all,

Thanks for supporting Camille's idea on widening the availability of
the CNCF Cluster to more open source projects!

Towards NEXT STEPS:

1) Camille please let ZK team know the answer is Yes.  What is needed next?

2) Dan & Chris --- what does CNCF need to do, in order to open this
up?  Do we want to publish info on our website for example?

3) Please could TOC people who want to help or "get involved" speak up
on this thread.

a



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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--
Kind Regards,

Diane Mueller
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift
@openshiftcommons

We have more in Common than you know, learn more at http://commons.openshift.org


Re: next steps on "opening up the cluster"

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Have the folks apply for cluster access here by creating an issue and filling out the template:

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all,

Thanks for supporting Camille's idea on widening the availability of
the CNCF Cluster to more open source projects!

Towards NEXT STEPS:

1) Camille please let ZK team know the answer is Yes.  What is needed next?

2) Dan & Chris --- what does CNCF need to do, in order to open this
up?  Do we want to publish info on our website for example?

3) Please could TOC people who want to help or "get involved" speak up
on this thread.

a



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


next steps on "opening up the cluster"

alexis richardson
 

Hi all,

Thanks for supporting Camille's idea on widening the availability of
the CNCF Cluster to more open source projects!

Towards NEXT STEPS:

1) Camille please let ZK team know the answer is Yes. What is needed next?

2) Dan & Chris --- what does CNCF need to do, in order to open this
up? Do we want to publish info on our website for example?

3) Please could TOC people who want to help or "get involved" speak up
on this thread.

a


Re: DRAFT slides for TOC meeting tomorrow

alexis richardson
 



On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

hmm I guess it depends on the audience then.

Yes.

 

I might agree that from an app developer perspective the points of interop in the old pict might not be of great interest, but from a CNCF project perspective, and as someone working on the projects that make up the CNCF family of projects, I actually think that might be critical as that shows where in the overall picture we might be missing some community focus on projects in that space.

When Ken and I created this stack, we first analysed all the projects that we could think of, that are in the space.  I want to share this info ASAP, but need to spend an hour cleaning it up.

 

Perhaps we need both?

I think the stack marketecture is of limited value unless backed up by:

1 -- detailed breakdowns of each layer's concerns into subcategories (eg orchestrator); and insofar as it exists any internal structure (eg relating orchestrator to container).

2 -- example projects for each subcategory; eg. "kubernetes is an orchestrator", collectively forming a market landscape 

We'd love help mapping the 'old' stack concepts into this model, as a proving exercise.

 



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

Alexis Richardson ---07/20/2016 08:11:32 AM---Doug, On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
To: Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Date: 07/20/2016 08:11 AM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] DRAFT slides for TOC meeting tomorrow





Doug,


On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
    On the new reference architecture picture I have a few comments/questions:
    1 - what is driving the need for a new one rather than tweaking the existing one?

IMHO the old one is quite hard to understand, especially for developers who might use CNCF projects.  

This is an attempt to simplify the picture somewhat.  At the end of the day most developers care about CNCF's main concerns: containers, runtime platforms, core services and ancillary tooling, and how they relate to each other, and to apps in general.


 
    2 - I actually prefer the old one. I like that it (abstractly) mentions most of the key pieces of the puzzle - e.g. the image registry and networking - things the new one doesn't touch on.

I think the old one is really abstract -- much too abstract -- and contains extra info, eg about all the interop surfaces, which are unlikely to be seen or used by many developers.

Networking *is* in the stack -- it's part of the runtime layer.  This is covered in the "detail" presentation of the stack that Ken showed two weeks ago.

Registries are part of app dev.

a




 




Re: DRAFT slides for TOC meeting tomorrow

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

hmm I guess it depends on the audience then. I might agree that from an app developer perspective the points of interop in the old pict might not be of great interest, but from a CNCF project perspective, and as someone working on the projects that make up the CNCF family of projects, I actually think that might be critical as that shows where in the overall picture we might be missing some community focus on projects in that space. Perhaps we need both?

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

Alexis Richardson ---07/20/2016 08:11:32 AM---Doug, On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
To: Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Date: 07/20/2016 08:11 AM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] DRAFT slides for TOC meeting tomorrow





Doug,


On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
    On the new reference architecture picture I have a few comments/questions:
    1 - what is driving the need for a new one rather than tweaking the existing one?

IMHO the old one is quite hard to understand, especially for developers who might use CNCF projects.  

This is an attempt to simplify the picture somewhat.  At the end of the day most developers care about CNCF's main concerns: containers, runtime platforms, core services and ancillary tooling, and how they relate to each other, and to apps in general.


 
    2 - I actually prefer the old one. I like that it (abstractly) mentions most of the key pieces of the puzzle - e.g. the image registry and networking - things the new one doesn't touch on.

I think the old one is really abstract -- much too abstract -- and contains extra info, eg about all the interop surfaces, which are unlikely to be seen or used by many developers.

Networking *is* in the stack -- it's part of the runtime layer.  This is covered in the "detail" presentation of the stack that Ken showed two weeks ago.

Registries are part of app dev.

a




 



Re: DRAFT slides for TOC meeting tomorrow

alexis richardson
 

Doug,


On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

On the new reference architecture picture I have a few comments/questions:
1 - what is driving the need for a new one rather than tweaking the existing one?

IMHO the old one is quite hard to understand, especially for developers who might use CNCF projects.  

This is an attempt to simplify the picture somewhat.  At the end of the day most developers care about CNCF's main concerns: containers, runtime platforms, core services and ancillary tooling, and how they relate to each other, and to apps in general.


 

2 - I actually prefer the old one. I like that it (abstractly) mentions most of the key pieces of the puzzle - e.g. the image registry and networking - things the new one doesn't touch on.

I think the old one is really abstract -- much too abstract -- and contains extra info, eg about all the interop surfaces, which are unlikely to be seen or used by many developers.

Networking *is* in the stack -- it's part of the runtime layer.  This is covered in the "detail" presentation of the stack that Ken showed two weeks ago.

Registries are part of app dev.

a




 


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

Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---07/19/2016 04:42:16 PM---all, https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1h8HFOAVLrJTvjUPP6ZHG2SzVKsTaMLvbiqjzUj4vml8/edit?ts=578

From: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Date: 07/19/2016 04:42 PM
Subject: [cncf-toc] DRAFT slides for TOC meeting tomorrow
Sent by: cncf-toc-bounces@...





all,

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1h8HFOAVLrJTvjUPP6ZHG2SzVKsTaMLvbiqjzUj4vml8/edit?ts=578d8da0#slide=id.g15e23e5137_1_0

comments actively sought

a
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc





Re: DRAFT slides for TOC meeting tomorrow

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

On the new reference architecture picture I have a few comments/questions:
1 - what is driving the need for a new one rather than tweaking the existing one?
2 - I actually prefer the old one. I like that it (abstractly) mentions most of the key pieces of the puzzle - e.g. the image registry and networking - things the new one doesn't touch on.

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

Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---07/19/2016 04:42:16 PM---all, https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1h8HFOAVLrJTvjUPP6ZHG2SzVKsTaMLvbiqjzUj4vml8/edit?ts=578

From: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Date: 07/19/2016 04:42 PM
Subject: [cncf-toc] DRAFT slides for TOC meeting tomorrow
Sent by: cncf-toc-bounces@...





all,

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1h8HFOAVLrJTvjUPP6ZHG2SzVKsTaMLvbiqjzUj4vml8/edit?ts=578d8da0#slide=id.g15e23e5137_1_0

comments actively sought

a
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




DRAFT slides for TOC meeting tomorrow

alexis richardson
 


Re: process for CNCF proposals

Brett Preston <bpreston@...>
 

Happy to help!

Ticket in progress to update Community to Projects.

Thanks,


Brett



On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
Brett Preston, our new project coordinator, would be happy to manage the process.

I'm fine changing from Community to Projects. If you or others can propose some improved text, we can quickly make the changes.



On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 5:07 AM, Alexis Richardson alexis@... wrote:

Dan, Chris,


Who is the best person to work with on clarifying the projects

proposals process on the website? I think that the current website

design makes this info a little hard to find. Should there be a

"Projects" item on the menu ribbon instead of "Community"?


alexis




--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000



--
Brett Preston
The Linux Foundation
+1 (971) 303-9030
bpreston@...

Google Talk: bpreston@...
Skype: bprestoncf


Re: cluster

alexis richardson
 

don't spin your wheels yet please

let's discuss your proposal as a group.


On Mon, 11 Jul 2016, 13:13 Camille Fournier, <skamille@...> wrote:

Sorry but is this a no or not now wrt using this cluster? I don't have time to spend on fruitless initiatives so if we're not yet clear on the purpose of this cluster yet I'm not going to spin my wheels trying to get a team of zk members spinning up work to make use of such a thing.

Just looking for clarity.

C

On Jul 11, 2016 6:13 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
Many thanks Camille.  This is a very interesting topic.  I don't think we can throw the doors open to all projects, but I do think that your email touches on many places where interoperation & cooperation would advance the overall CNCF mission, brand, etc.  

Perhaps it would be helpful to pivot this topic in Ben's direction.  

Ben:

In your view, what is a good set of shared goals for CNCF & ASF?  How do we make sure that Mesos, an ASF project, benefits from CNCF and vice versa?  Are the "cloud native needs" of Mesos the same as for other ASF projects such as: ZK, Kafka, and all the data streaming projects?

alexis




On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:55 PM Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hi folks,

So the ZooKeeper community has expressed some interest in using the CNCF cluster to set up a more sharable testing infrastructure for release verification. Are we open to this sort of thing? It looks like the cluster has a minimum 20 node request volume which is far more than the project would need, and tbh I don't really understand that minimum requirement? Even if we don't necessarily want to support release verification testing for ZK specifically, should we ever want to support it for similar systems such as etcd imposing a minimum usage seems slightly strange?

In conversations with Dan we discussed the concept that one of the most useful things CNCF could provide to teams was support beyond unit/simple integration test infrastructure, into more thorough system testing infrastructure. Anyway, I would say that a huge challenge for these cloud native distributed infrastructure components is having distributed testing environments to validate releases in a public manner, so it would be cool if we could consider supporting that.

Thanks,
C

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: cluster

Camille Fournier
 

Sorry but is this a no or not now wrt using this cluster? I don't have time to spend on fruitless initiatives so if we're not yet clear on the purpose of this cluster yet I'm not going to spin my wheels trying to get a team of zk members spinning up work to make use of such a thing.

Just looking for clarity.

C

On Jul 11, 2016 6:13 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
Many thanks Camille.  This is a very interesting topic.  I don't think we can throw the doors open to all projects, but I do think that your email touches on many places where interoperation & cooperation would advance the overall CNCF mission, brand, etc.  

Perhaps it would be helpful to pivot this topic in Ben's direction.  

Ben:

In your view, what is a good set of shared goals for CNCF & ASF?  How do we make sure that Mesos, an ASF project, benefits from CNCF and vice versa?  Are the "cloud native needs" of Mesos the same as for other ASF projects such as: ZK, Kafka, and all the data streaming projects?

alexis




On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:55 PM Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hi folks,

So the ZooKeeper community has expressed some interest in using the CNCF cluster to set up a more sharable testing infrastructure for release verification. Are we open to this sort of thing? It looks like the cluster has a minimum 20 node request volume which is far more than the project would need, and tbh I don't really understand that minimum requirement? Even if we don't necessarily want to support release verification testing for ZK specifically, should we ever want to support it for similar systems such as etcd imposing a minimum usage seems slightly strange?

In conversations with Dan we discussed the concept that one of the most useful things CNCF could provide to teams was support beyond unit/simple integration test infrastructure, into more thorough system testing infrastructure. Anyway, I would say that a huge challenge for these cloud native distributed infrastructure components is having distributed testing environments to validate releases in a public manner, so it would be cool if we could consider supporting that.

Thanks,
C

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: process for CNCF proposals

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

Brett Preston, our new project coordinator, would be happy to manage the process.

I'm fine changing from Community to Projects. If you or others can propose some improved text, we can quickly make the changes.



On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 5:07 AM, Alexis Richardson alexis@... wrote:

Dan, Chris,


Who is the best person to work with on clarifying the projects

proposals process on the website? I think that the current website

design makes this info a little hard to find. Should there be a

"Projects" item on the menu ribbon instead of "Community"?


alexis




--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000


Re: cluster

alexis richardson
 

Many thanks Camille.  This is a very interesting topic.  I don't think we can throw the doors open to all projects, but I do think that your email touches on many places where interoperation & cooperation would advance the overall CNCF mission, brand, etc.  

Perhaps it would be helpful to pivot this topic in Ben's direction.  

Ben:

In your view, what is a good set of shared goals for CNCF & ASF?  How do we make sure that Mesos, an ASF project, benefits from CNCF and vice versa?  Are the "cloud native needs" of Mesos the same as for other ASF projects such as: ZK, Kafka, and all the data streaming projects?

alexis




On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:55 PM Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hi folks,

So the ZooKeeper community has expressed some interest in using the CNCF cluster to set up a more sharable testing infrastructure for release verification. Are we open to this sort of thing? It looks like the cluster has a minimum 20 node request volume which is far more than the project would need, and tbh I don't really understand that minimum requirement? Even if we don't necessarily want to support release verification testing for ZK specifically, should we ever want to support it for similar systems such as etcd imposing a minimum usage seems slightly strange?

In conversations with Dan we discussed the concept that one of the most useful things CNCF could provide to teams was support beyond unit/simple integration test infrastructure, into more thorough system testing infrastructure. Anyway, I would say that a huge challenge for these cloud native distributed infrastructure components is having distributed testing environments to validate releases in a public manner, so it would be cool if we could consider supporting that.

Thanks,
C

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

7281 - 7300 of 7561