Date   

Re: Final RFC: containerd graduation

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Final reminder here on any reviews/comments, I plan on kicking the vote early next week.


On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:54 PM Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
Thanks.

I posted a link to the review presentation and project health dashboard to the PR. A link to the CII badge status details is also in the PR.

TOC members: PTAL and ask questions if there is essential information you think is missing.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:35 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
+1

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:29 PM Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
Could we please push that out a week? A week isn't a sufficient amount of time for any serious diligence.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 11:58 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Hey all, now that we have a newly formed TOC, we are back to tackling backlog of project/graduation requests. At the TOC call today, we discussed that containerd will be next and offer a week of commentary from the wider community: 


We will then kick off a formal vote next week on graduation.

Thanks!

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



--
Cheers,

Chris Aniszczyk
http://aniszczyk.org
+1 512 961 6719


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


RFC: CII + Graduation Criteria

Chris Aniszczyk
 

On the last TOC call there was a call to look at updating the graduation requirements and also to look at the various CII levels: 

One idea was to potentially have the incubating level require the "silver" level for CII and graduated require the "gold" level:

https://github.com/coreinfrastructure/best-practices-badge/blob/master/doc/other.md#silver-passing1-criteria
https://github.com/coreinfrastructure/best-practices-badge/blob/master/doc/other.md#gold-passing2-criteria

On the next TOC call, we will have one of the main CII authors to go over the levels and answer any questions from the community. This should be a useful exercise to see if we can leverage the hard work that has been done in CII along with giving them feedback on the criteria they have developed.

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


Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal

Quinton Hoole
 

Hi TOC

The document has been moved to a PR:  https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/194

Chris, it looks like we need to do a few updates on our GitHub repo to reflect the new TOC members – the list is out of date.

Approval required by 1 of: 
    - benh
    - bgrant0607
    - jonboulle
    - kenowens12
    - monadic
    - skamille

Also, my GitHub user name changed to quinton-hoole-2

Thanks

Q

From: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 09:45
To: "\"Li"
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of <Li>
Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 09:28
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

Thanks for putting this together! I have a few questions and comments on the proposal.

Questions:

1. Does every existing CNCF project need to be assigned to a SIG?

Quinton> Yes, that’s the intention, primarily so that there is clear responsibility (for example for project health checks) and communication channels.

2. Does every candidate project proposal need to be prepared with a SIG?

Quinton> In theory a project could independently prepare and submit a proposal to the TOC, but a specified SIG would perform the bulk of the due diligence on the project, so it would be in the project’s interest to have the SIG help them to prepare the proposal.   If a project objects to some aspect of the SIG involvement (for example claiming SIG bias against their project), then they should escalate to the TOC as required.

Comments:

I would like to see the SIG responsibilities explicitly include helping young projects to grow and thrive (sandbox and early incubation projects). For example, each sandbox project get assigned one or two mentors from the SIG. The SIG tech lead helps on the roadmap and governance structure for sandbox projects.

Quinton> I think we need to be careful about foisting unwanted guidance or control over projects by SIG’s.  I would prefer to frame that as something like “projects should request assistance from their assigned SIG ….”.  We already have wording around how projects request help from the CNCF, and will amend that to make it clear that this includes help from SIGs.

As the proposal mentions SIG retirement, shall we also mention the split/merge of SIGs? For example, the core and applied architecture SIG is kind of a umbrella SIG, especially the applied architecture part. I can image that the ML/big data area might need its own SIG as it grows. 

Quinton> Yes, agreed.  I will add wording to this effect.


Re: Final RFC: containerd graduation

Brian Grant
 

Thanks.

I posted a link to the review presentation and project health dashboard to the PR. A link to the CII badge status details is also in the PR.

TOC members: PTAL and ask questions if there is essential information you think is missing.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:35 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
+1

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:29 PM Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
Could we please push that out a week? A week isn't a sufficient amount of time for any serious diligence.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 11:58 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Hey all, now that we have a newly formed TOC, we are back to tackling backlog of project/graduation requests. At the TOC call today, we discussed that containerd will be next and offer a week of commentary from the wider community: 


We will then kick off a formal vote next week on graduation.

Thanks!

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



--
Cheers,

Chris Aniszczyk
http://aniszczyk.org
+1 512 961 6719


Re: Final RFC: containerd graduation

Chris Aniszczyk
 

+1

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:29 PM Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
Could we please push that out a week? A week isn't a sufficient amount of time for any serious diligence.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 11:58 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Hey all, now that we have a newly formed TOC, we are back to tackling backlog of project/graduation requests. At the TOC call today, we discussed that containerd will be next and offer a week of commentary from the wider community: 


We will then kick off a formal vote next week on graduation.

Thanks!

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



--
Cheers,

Chris Aniszczyk
http://aniszczyk.org
+1 512 961 6719


Re: Final RFC: containerd graduation

Brian Grant
 

Could we please push that out a week? A week isn't a sufficient amount of time for any serious diligence.


On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 11:58 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Hey all, now that we have a newly formed TOC, we are back to tackling backlog of project/graduation requests. At the TOC call today, we discussed that containerd will be next and offer a week of commentary from the wider community: 


We will then kick off a formal vote next week on graduation.

Thanks!

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


Final RFC: containerd graduation

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey all, now that we have a newly formed TOC, we are back to tackling backlog of project/graduation requests. At the TOC call today, we discussed that containerd will be next and offer a week of commentary from the wider community: 


We will then kick off a formal vote next week on graduation.

Thanks!

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


Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal

Quinton Hoole
 


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of <Li>
Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 09:28
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

Thanks for putting this together! I have a few questions and comments on the proposal.

Questions:

1. Does every existing CNCF project need to be assigned to a SIG?

Quinton> Yes, that’s the intention, primarily so that there is clear responsibility (for example for project health checks) and communication channels.

2. Does every candidate project proposal need to be prepared with a SIG?

Quinton> In theory a project could independently prepare and submit a proposal to the TOC, but a specified SIG would perform the bulk of the due diligence on the project, so it would be in the project’s interest to have the SIG help them to prepare the proposal.   If a project objects to some aspect of the SIG involvement (for example claiming SIG bias against their project), then they should escalate to the TOC as required.

Comments:

I would like to see the SIG responsibilities explicitly include helping young projects to grow and thrive (sandbox and early incubation projects). For example, each sandbox project get assigned one or two mentors from the SIG. The SIG tech lead helps on the roadmap and governance structure for sandbox projects.

Quinton> I think we need to be careful about foisting unwanted guidance or control over projects by SIG’s.  I would prefer to frame that as something like “projects should request assistance from their assigned SIG ….”.  We already have wording around how projects request help from the CNCF, and will amend that to make it clear that this includes help from SIGs.

As the proposal mentions SIG retirement, shall we also mention the split/merge of SIGs? For example, the core and applied architecture SIG is kind of a umbrella SIG, especially the applied architecture part. I can image that the ML/big data area might need its own SIG as it grows. 

Quinton> Yes, agreed.  I will add wording to this effect.


Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal

alexis richardson
 

Xiang,

Below:



On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:28 PM "Li, Xiang <x.li@...> wrote:
Thanks for putting this together! I have a few questions and comments on the proposal.

Questions:

1. Does every existing CNCF project need to be assigned to a SIG?

I don't think that's a "MUST HAVE", but it would be Nice.


 
2. Does every candidate project proposal need to be prepared with a SIG?

Well, one aim of all this is that SIGs help to identify project gaps for CNCF, and some of the pre-solicitation and investigation.  It would be great if a CICD SIG could come to the TOC with 2-3 well written decks & docs from the group of projects in that space, f.ex


 

Comments:

I would like to see the SIG responsibilities explicitly include helping young projects to grow and thrive (sandbox and early incubation projects).

If that is not listed, I agree it would be helpful.  

Overall project Help, Health and Planning is super important at all levels of the CNCF and needs champions in the TOC, SIGs, and TOC Contributors.



 
For example, each sandbox project get assigned one or two mentors from the SIG. The SIG tech lead helps on the roadmap and governance structure for sandbox projects.

I'd like to see the CNCF budget provide explicit resources to help here.   We need to be careful to not over-commit voluntary resources.  Experience has taught us that this can be unfruitful. 

 


As the proposal mentions SIG retirement, shall we also mention the split/merge of SIGs? For example, the core and applied architecture SIG is kind of a umbrella SIG, especially the applied architecture part. I can image that the ML/big data area might need its own SIG as it grows. 

+1

 


Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal

Li, Xiang
 

Thanks for putting this together! I have a few questions and comments on the proposal.

Questions:

1. Does every existing CNCF project need to be assigned to a SIG?
2. Does every candidate project proposal need to be prepared with a SIG?

Comments:

I would like to see the SIG responsibilities explicitly include helping young projects to grow and thrive (sandbox and early incubation projects). For example, each sandbox project get assigned one or two mentors from the SIG. The SIG tech lead helps on the roadmap and governance structure for sandbox projects.


As the proposal mentions SIG retirement, shall we also mention the split/merge of SIGs? For example, the core and applied architecture SIG is kind of a umbrella SIG, especially the applied architecture part. I can image that the ML/big data area might need its own SIG as it grows. 


Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal

Li, Xiang
 

Right. Operator is a concept, better to be put in the Area column. Operator framework is a generic framework project, which can be a potential project in the generic app dev, ops, testing SIG. For specific operators, they will fall into different SIGs depending on their functionality.


Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal

Diane Mueller
 

Quinton et al,

I was just thinking of "Operators" as a generic term much like "PaaS" is on App Dev, Ops & Testing SIG areas list rather than specifically calling out Operator Framework. 

Diane



On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:46 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Yes, although I think that operators themselves will probably also be discussed in most of the SIG’s, as they’re a general-purpose automation mechanism, and may be applied anywhere.
  
So operators for Vitess, Cassandra, etcd  will likely be discussed under SIG-Storage, etc

Here’s a list of some example operators, for those who may not be familiar:


The Operator Framework, API etc will probably be discussed in App Dev, Ops & Testing.


Diane, were you referring to the Operator Framework, or the operators themselves?

Q

From: Diane Mueller-Klingspor <dmueller@...>
Date: Monday, February 4, 2019 at 10:13
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: Brian Grant <briangrant@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>, Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal


Quinton et al,

Would it be acceptable to add"Operators" to list of areas covered in the App Dev, Ops & Testing - "Area" column? As we get asked a lot which Kubernetes SIG this topic falls into. I know it's not a CNCF project, but it would be good to point people to the SIG where the conversations are happening.

Diane Mueller

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:06 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:

From: Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Date: Friday, February 1, 2019 at 07:24
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>, Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

Thanks for all the work on this. It's much improved. I think the proposed governance model should address concerns with earlier proposals.

What is meant by "high level roadmap of projects within this space"? Usually I associate "roadmap" with a timeline. Landscape? Trailmap? How they fit into a reference architecture?

Quinton> I didn’t write those words, but my own thinking is that it is intended to encompass all of the above, including the timeline angle.  i.e. what this space looks like today (including projects, ref arch, landscape, common trail maps etc) and also how these are changing over time (trends), and how we would like to influence all of this (filling gaps, better integrations, timelines for this), etc.


Nit: I'd put Buildpacks under App Dev, Ops & Testing. 

Quinton> Yes, some of the project allocations were a bit strained, with non-perfect fits.  I agree regarding Buildpacks and have moved it.

Q


On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:47 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Greetings to the new TOC

Late last year Alexis kicked off a public discussion regarding forming CNCF SIG’s (initially referred to as Categories).  Since then a few of us have collaborated on soliciting further input, addressing all the comments, and producing a finalish proposal for consideration by the TOC.

Please give it a read and we can decide how to proceed at the next meeting this Tue, Feb 5


Q

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 07:58
To: Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>
Cc: Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>
Subject: Re: CNCF TOC SIGs Doc

can you put this link into the main doc as a comment?

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:57 PM Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...> wrote:

Hi Alexis,


Following our initial discussion in Seattle, Quinton and I had a discussion on this.   I captured the notes and applied them to the operating model.   I decided to make a copy of the doc and apply the changes to operating model section only - the current doc is hard to process due to the number of comments.


Here is the amended operating model content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ySri5jVrPaJjTJ_tZnDzcc4Xmcm4uKoUrHT6lVO6Pcw/edit#heading=h.6cl6hmsbz9fv


Kind Regards,

Alex





From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Sent: 09 January 2019 19:36
To: Erin Boyd; Sarah Allen
Cc: Bryan Cantrill; Chris Aniszczyk; Quinton Hoole; Alex Chircop; Matt Farina
Subject: CNCF TOC SIGs Doc
 
hi all

happy 2019!

how's this doc looking?  I daren't look.  can we show the toc an update next week?

a



On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:35 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+sarah

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, 13:35 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
Sounds good.
Please feel free to catch me on Slack.

Erin


On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:18 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thank you Erin.  Let's try and sync 1-1 during the week 

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018, 00:42 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
HI Alexis,
I think I am speaking on a panel at this time.
I can collaborate in the document.
Sorry about that.
Thanks,
Erin


On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:46 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

CNCF TOC meeting re SIGs Doc

meeting to discuss the Categories and SIGs doc
identify and divide up work tasks to clean up draft doc.
eg: we agree a new section plan and each take one section? or something
When
Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:30pm – 4:10pm Mountain Time - Denver
Where
lobby of the Sheraton Grand Seattle (map)
Joining info
meet.google.com/hud-jxti-yvh
Or dial: +1 929-299-3513  PIN: 706587657#
Calendar
eboyd@...
Who
Alexis Richardson - organizer
Matt Farina
Chris Aniszczyk

Going (eboyd@...)?   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this email at the account eboyd@... because you are subscribed for invitations on calendar eboyd@....

To stop receiving these emails, please log in to https://www.google.com/calendar/ and change your notification settings for this calendar.

Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to modify your RSVP response. Learn More.



--
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


FYI: CNCF Annual Report (2018)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Here's our annual report for last year:



We'll discuss it briefly on tomorrow's TOC call too!

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


TOC Agenda 2/5/2019

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Here's the agenda and deck for tomorrow:

- Congrats CoreDNS on CNCF Graduation!
- FYI: CNCF Annual Report
- TOC Election 2019 Results!
- CNCF TOC Seat opens March 2019: https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/191
- TOC Chair Election: https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/192
- Diversity (dims)
- CNCF SIGs
- FYI: Summer of Code Call for Ideas: https://github.com/cncf/soc#project-ideas


Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal

Quinton Hoole
 

Yes, although I think that operators themselves will probably also be discussed in most of the SIG’s, as they’re a general-purpose automation mechanism, and may be applied anywhere.
  
So operators for Vitess, Cassandra, etcd  will likely be discussed under SIG-Storage, etc

Here’s a list of some example operators, for those who may not be familiar:


The Operator Framework, API etc will probably be discussed in App Dev, Ops & Testing.


Diane, were you referring to the Operator Framework, or the operators themselves?

Q

From: Diane Mueller-Klingspor <dmueller@...>
Date: Monday, February 4, 2019 at 10:13
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: Brian Grant <briangrant@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>, Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal


Quinton et al,

Would it be acceptable to add"Operators" to list of areas covered in the App Dev, Ops & Testing - "Area" column? As we get asked a lot which Kubernetes SIG this topic falls into. I know it's not a CNCF project, but it would be good to point people to the SIG where the conversations are happening.

Diane Mueller

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:06 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:

From: Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Date: Friday, February 1, 2019 at 07:24
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>, Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

Thanks for all the work on this. It's much improved. I think the proposed governance model should address concerns with earlier proposals.

What is meant by "high level roadmap of projects within this space"? Usually I associate "roadmap" with a timeline. Landscape? Trailmap? How they fit into a reference architecture?

Quinton> I didn’t write those words, but my own thinking is that it is intended to encompass all of the above, including the timeline angle.  i.e. what this space looks like today (including projects, ref arch, landscape, common trail maps etc) and also how these are changing over time (trends), and how we would like to influence all of this (filling gaps, better integrations, timelines for this), etc.


Nit: I'd put Buildpacks under App Dev, Ops & Testing. 

Quinton> Yes, some of the project allocations were a bit strained, with non-perfect fits.  I agree regarding Buildpacks and have moved it.

Q


On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:47 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Greetings to the new TOC

Late last year Alexis kicked off a public discussion regarding forming CNCF SIG’s (initially referred to as Categories).  Since then a few of us have collaborated on soliciting further input, addressing all the comments, and producing a finalish proposal for consideration by the TOC.

Please give it a read and we can decide how to proceed at the next meeting this Tue, Feb 5


Q

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 07:58
To: Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>
Cc: Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>
Subject: Re: CNCF TOC SIGs Doc

can you put this link into the main doc as a comment?

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:57 PM Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...> wrote:

Hi Alexis,


Following our initial discussion in Seattle, Quinton and I had a discussion on this.   I captured the notes and applied them to the operating model.   I decided to make a copy of the doc and apply the changes to operating model section only - the current doc is hard to process due to the number of comments.


Here is the amended operating model content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ySri5jVrPaJjTJ_tZnDzcc4Xmcm4uKoUrHT6lVO6Pcw/edit#heading=h.6cl6hmsbz9fv


Kind Regards,

Alex





From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Sent: 09 January 2019 19:36
To: Erin Boyd; Sarah Allen
Cc: Bryan Cantrill; Chris Aniszczyk; Quinton Hoole; Alex Chircop; Matt Farina
Subject: CNCF TOC SIGs Doc
 
hi all

happy 2019!

how's this doc looking?  I daren't look.  can we show the toc an update next week?

a



On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:35 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+sarah

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, 13:35 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
Sounds good.
Please feel free to catch me on Slack.

Erin


On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:18 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thank you Erin.  Let's try and sync 1-1 during the week 

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018, 00:42 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
HI Alexis,
I think I am speaking on a panel at this time.
I can collaborate in the document.
Sorry about that.
Thanks,
Erin


On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:46 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

CNCF TOC meeting re SIGs Doc

meeting to discuss the Categories and SIGs doc
identify and divide up work tasks to clean up draft doc.
eg: we agree a new section plan and each take one section? or something
When
Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:30pm – 4:10pm Mountain Time - Denver
Where
lobby of the Sheraton Grand Seattle (map)
Joining info
meet.google.com/hud-jxti-yvh
Or dial: +1 929-299-3513  PIN: 706587657#
Calendar
eboyd@...
Who
Alexis Richardson - organizer
Matt Farina
Chris Aniszczyk

Going (eboyd@...)?   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this email at the account eboyd@... because you are subscribed for invitations on calendar eboyd@....

To stop receiving these emails, please log in to https://www.google.com/calendar/ and change your notification settings for this calendar.

Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to modify your RSVP response. Learn More.



--
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: CNCF SIGs Proposal

Diane Mueller
 


Quinton et al,

Would it be acceptable to add"Operators" to list of areas covered in the App Dev, Ops & Testing - "Area" column? As we get asked a lot which Kubernetes SIG this topic falls into. I know it's not a CNCF project, but it would be good to point people to the SIG where the conversations are happening.

Diane Mueller


On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:06 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:

From: Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Date: Friday, February 1, 2019 at 07:24
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>, Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

Thanks for all the work on this. It's much improved. I think the proposed governance model should address concerns with earlier proposals.

What is meant by "high level roadmap of projects within this space"? Usually I associate "roadmap" with a timeline. Landscape? Trailmap? How they fit into a reference architecture?

Quinton> I didn’t write those words, but my own thinking is that it is intended to encompass all of the above, including the timeline angle.  i.e. what this space looks like today (including projects, ref arch, landscape, common trail maps etc) and also how these are changing over time (trends), and how we would like to influence all of this (filling gaps, better integrations, timelines for this), etc.


Nit: I'd put Buildpacks under App Dev, Ops & Testing. 

Quinton> Yes, some of the project allocations were a bit strained, with non-perfect fits.  I agree regarding Buildpacks and have moved it.

Q


On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:47 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Greetings to the new TOC

Late last year Alexis kicked off a public discussion regarding forming CNCF SIG’s (initially referred to as Categories).  Since then a few of us have collaborated on soliciting further input, addressing all the comments, and producing a finalish proposal for consideration by the TOC.

Please give it a read and we can decide how to proceed at the next meeting this Tue, Feb 5


Q

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 07:58
To: Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>
Cc: Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>
Subject: Re: CNCF TOC SIGs Doc

can you put this link into the main doc as a comment?

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:57 PM Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...> wrote:

Hi Alexis,


Following our initial discussion in Seattle, Quinton and I had a discussion on this.   I captured the notes and applied them to the operating model.   I decided to make a copy of the doc and apply the changes to operating model section only - the current doc is hard to process due to the number of comments.


Here is the amended operating model content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ySri5jVrPaJjTJ_tZnDzcc4Xmcm4uKoUrHT6lVO6Pcw/edit#heading=h.6cl6hmsbz9fv


Kind Regards,

Alex





From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Sent: 09 January 2019 19:36
To: Erin Boyd; Sarah Allen
Cc: Bryan Cantrill; Chris Aniszczyk; Quinton Hoole; Alex Chircop; Matt Farina
Subject: CNCF TOC SIGs Doc
 
hi all

happy 2019!

how's this doc looking?  I daren't look.  can we show the toc an update next week?

a



On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:35 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+sarah

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, 13:35 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
Sounds good.
Please feel free to catch me on Slack.

Erin


On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:18 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thank you Erin.  Let's try and sync 1-1 during the week 

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018, 00:42 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
HI Alexis,
I think I am speaking on a panel at this time.
I can collaborate in the document.
Sorry about that.
Thanks,
Erin


On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:46 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

CNCF TOC meeting re SIGs Doc

meeting to discuss the Categories and SIGs doc
identify and divide up work tasks to clean up draft doc.
eg: we agree a new section plan and each take one section? or something
When
Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:30pm – 4:10pm Mountain Time - Denver
Where
lobby of the Sheraton Grand Seattle (map)
Joining info
meet.google.com/hud-jxti-yvh
Or dial: +1 929-299-3513  PIN: 706587657#
Calendar
eboyd@...
Who
Alexis Richardson - organizer
Matt Farina
Chris Aniszczyk

Going (eboyd@...)?   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this email at the account eboyd@... because you are subscribed for invitations on calendar eboyd@....

To stop receiving these emails, please log in to https://www.google.com/calendar/ and change your notification settings for this calendar.

Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to modify your RSVP response. Learn More.



--
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: CNCF SIGs Proposal

Sonya Koptyev <sonya@...>
 

Agreed that this should likely be left up to the chartering process, but Oversight to me says “management”. So something like a steering committee or advisory board, not necessary related to technology at all. 

Thanks,
Sonya

Sonya Koptyev | Director of Evangelism | m: +1 425 505 0100



On Feb 2, 2019, 11:54 AM -0800, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, wrote:

For what it’s worth, I poked around in some dictionaries and thesauri, and am now even more convinced that you’re all right and Governance is not the best term.  Succinct alternatives seem fairly hard to come by, but the best one I could find (in all of 2 minutes poking around) was (drumroll):

“Oversight”
Definition: supervision, watchful care

Synonyms: control, inspection, surveillance, check, guardianship, …
Antonyms (opposites): neglect, mismanagement, ignorance,…

At this point I’m going to hand over further bike-shedding to the chartering process for this particular SIG :-)

Q

From: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Date: Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 11:19
To: Igor Mameshin <igor@...>, Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...>
Cc: Liz Rice <liz@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

I fully expect some of the SIG names to be wordsmithed by the TOC Liaison, Chairs and other interested parties of that SIG during the chartering process, where the more detailed scope of the SIG will be defined and fleshed out.  I’d prefer to feed all this input into that process, rather than hash it all out here, now.

As a general principle, when we crafted the initial draft names, we aimed for short names, sufficiently broad to cover the domain.  As soon as we ended up with “X and Y and Z” type names, we tried to come up with a more succinct term that covered X and Y and Z as well as all closely related fields.   That’s why “Security” (too narrow), “Security and Policy” (too narrow and too verbose), and various others got chucked out.  "Security and Compliance” is probably one of the better names I’ve heard, and probably better than “Governance”, but lets hash all that out as part of the chartering process described above.

Q

From: Igor Mameshin <igor@...>
Date: Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 10:33
To: Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...>
Cc: Liz Rice <liz@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

"Security and Compliance" is a good name.  I would not limit it just to "Security".  Rapidly evolving cloud environments do require governance, and there is a broad range of policies that need to be automated - security, cloud tagging, data filtering, cost management, GDPR, data provenance, bias checkers for AI, etc.     

I suggest to update the SIG description to also include "policy compliance".  One of the CNCF projects is already providing capabilities around automated policy compliance beyond security:

This description may help to promote more work on automated policy compliance beyond security, which I think is very important.  May be "Security and Governance"?

Thank you,
Igor



On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:55 AM Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...> wrote:
+1 to Security & Compliance over Governance 

(Which will get abbreviated to SecComp and then everyone will think there’s a SIG on seccomp profiles. :) 

On Feb 2, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Sure - regulations are what folks have to be in compliance with. So long as the SIG doesn't start writing more regulations :-)

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:26, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
RegSec?

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, 14:24 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
+1 that "Governance" isn't a great name for this security-related SIG. I'd suggest "Security and Compliance". In many cases end users are concerned not just with security but also with associated standards compliance (PCI, GDPR, FedRamp etc). I believe the CNCF could add a lot of value by helping to establish what's necessary or best practice for meeting these compliance requirements.

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@...> wrote:
I agree with Sarah, and this is where most people missunderstand policy - they think of it in terms of governance instead of a set of rules which provides constraints for a cluster. Could we change it to security & policy or even just Security , or something else ?

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 6:31 AM Sarah Allen via Lists.Cncf.Io <sarahallen=google.com@...> wrote:
Overall the doc looks great -- thanks Alexis for your editorial work and Quinton for moving this forward!

One small point on naming of a specific SIG: 

Governance

security, authentication, authorization, auditing, policy enforcement

SPIFFE, SPIRE, Open Policy Agent, Notary, TUF,  Falco,


The word "governance" is often used to convey human processes of policy (e.g. how decisions are made, roles and responsibilities, etc.), and if I saw that in a list of SIGs, I probably wouldn't go looking there for security.  

Also note that the "Governance" section of the same doc addressees those same kinds of human policy concerns (e.g. "SIGs must have a documented governance process that encourages community participation and clear guidelines to avoid biased decision-making."), yet the topics for the SIG and list of projects are more about the software used to implement security and privacy, along with ensuring compliance (auditing, etc).

Also, note that some open source projects have a GOVERNANCE.md (or similarly named directory) to define project roles and decision-making process (examples: Nodecloudevents, SAFE, docker, k8s community)

Interested in what others think about this naming detail.

Thanks!
Sarah

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:34 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
My apologies Diane – I just reread the Operating Model section and you’re right - it’s not sufficiently clear on the point you raised.  I will add some wording to the effect of my email reply below.

Regards

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Diane Mueller-Klingspor <dmueller@...>
Date: Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 06:54
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>, Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

Quinton, 

If you are referring to this one sentence:

"The TOC makes use of this input to act as an informed and effective executive board to select and promote appropriate CNCF projects and practices, and to disseminate high quality information to end users and the cloud-native community in general." as the section discussion the creation/instantiation/proposal process for new SIGs"

I'd like a bit more clarity. If someone from the community (outside of the TOC) wishes to propose a SIG, what it the process? Or is it just the purview of the TOC on know when a new SIG should be created - then that would be nice to have clarified further.

If there's another section of the document, that you feel clarifies this SIG instantiation/proposal process, please point me in the right direction. I'm just not finding it.

Thanks for your help,

Diane Mueller
@openshiftcommon

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:16 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Thanks Diane

I think that’s adequately covered in the doc - the TOC creates and approves SIG’s.  If anyone believes we need to create more SIG’s, they should, by implication, ask the TOC to do that.  The current intention is to keep the number of SIGs relatively small, at least initially, and make sure they’re all highly effective before expanding the number of SIG's.

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Diane Mueller-Klingspor <dmueller@...>
Date: Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 05:27
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>, Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

Quinton et al,

Would it be possible to ask for a section in the Operator Model on how one goes about proposing a new SIG and the process for getting it approved?
(or if there is documentation on this topic elsewhere, reference/link to it in an appendix)?

Kind Regards,

Diane Mueller
Director, Community Development
Red Hat 
@openshiftcommon

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:47 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Greetings to the new TOC

Late last year Alexis kicked off a public discussion regarding forming CNCF SIG’s (initially referred to as Categories).  Since then a few of us have collaborated on soliciting further input, addressing all the comments, and producing a finalish proposal for consideration by the TOC.

Please give it a read and we can decide how to proceed at the next meeting this Tue, Feb 5


Q

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 07:58
To: Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>
Cc: Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>
Subject: Re: CNCF TOC SIGs Doc

can you put this link into the main doc as a comment?

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:57 PM Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...> wrote:

Hi Alexis,


Following our initial discussion in Seattle, Quinton and I had a discussion on this.   I captured the notes and applied them to the operating model.   I decided to make a copy of the doc and apply the changes to operating model section only - the current doc is hard to process due to the number of comments.


Here is the amended operating model content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ySri5jVrPaJjTJ_tZnDzcc4Xmcm4uKoUrHT6lVO6Pcw/edit#heading=h.6cl6hmsbz9fv


Kind Regards,

Alex





From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Sent: 09 January 2019 19:36
To: Erin Boyd; Sarah Allen
Cc: Bryan Cantrill; Chris Aniszczyk; Quinton Hoole; Alex Chircop; Matt Farina
Subject: CNCF TOC SIGs Doc
 
hi all

happy 2019!

how's this doc looking?  I daren't look.  can we show the toc an update next week?

a



On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:35 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+sarah

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, 13:35 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
Sounds good.
Please feel free to catch me on Slack.

Erin


On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:18 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thank you Erin.  Let's try and sync 1-1 during the week 

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018, 00:42 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
HI Alexis,
I think I am speaking on a panel at this time.
I can collaborate in the document.
Sorry about that.
Thanks,
Erin


On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:46 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

CNCF TOC meeting re SIGs Doc

meeting to discuss the Categories and SIGs doc
identify and divide up work tasks to clean up draft doc.
eg: we agree a new section plan and each take one section? or something
When
Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:30pm – 4:10pm Mountain Time - Denver
Where
lobby of the Sheraton Grand Seattle (map)
Joining info
meet.google.com/hud-jxti-yvh
Or dial: +1 929-299-3513  PIN: 706587657#
Calendar
eboyd@...
Who
Alexis Richardson - organizer
Matt Farina
Chris Aniszczyk

Going (eboyd@...)?   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this email at the account eboyd@... because you are subscribed for invitations on calendar eboyd@....

To stop receiving these emails, please log in to https://www.google.com/calendar/ and change your notification settings for this calendar.

Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to modify your RSVP response. Learn More.



--
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



--
Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Principle Engineer
IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145


Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal

Quinton Hoole
 

For what it’s worth, I poked around in some dictionaries and thesauri, and am now even more convinced that you’re all right and Governance is not the best term.  Succinct alternatives seem fairly hard to come by, but the best one I could find (in all of 2 minutes poking around) was (drumroll):

“Oversight”
Definition: supervision, watchful care

Synonyms: control, inspection, surveillance, check, guardianship, …
Antonyms (opposites): neglect, mismanagement, ignorance,…

At this point I’m going to hand over further bike-shedding to the chartering process for this particular SIG :-)

Q

From: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Date: Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 11:19
To: Igor Mameshin <igor@...>, Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...>
Cc: Liz Rice <liz@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

I fully expect some of the SIG names to be wordsmithed by the TOC Liaison, Chairs and other interested parties of that SIG during the chartering process, where the more detailed scope of the SIG will be defined and fleshed out.  I’d prefer to feed all this input into that process, rather than hash it all out here, now.

As a general principle, when we crafted the initial draft names, we aimed for short names, sufficiently broad to cover the domain.  As soon as we ended up with “X and Y and Z” type names, we tried to come up with a more succinct term that covered X and Y and Z as well as all closely related fields.   That’s why “Security” (too narrow), “Security and Policy” (too narrow and too verbose), and various others got chucked out.  "Security and Compliance” is probably one of the better names I’ve heard, and probably better than “Governance”, but lets hash all that out as part of the chartering process described above.

Q

From: Igor Mameshin <igor@...>
Date: Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 10:33
To: Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...>
Cc: Liz Rice <liz@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

"Security and Compliance" is a good name.  I would not limit it just to "Security".  Rapidly evolving cloud environments do require governance, and there is a broad range of policies that need to be automated - security, cloud tagging, data filtering, cost management, GDPR, data provenance, bias checkers for AI, etc.     

I suggest to update the SIG description to also include "policy compliance".  One of the CNCF projects is already providing capabilities around automated policy compliance beyond security:

This description may help to promote more work on automated policy compliance beyond security, which I think is very important.  May be "Security and Governance"?

Thank you,
Igor



On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:55 AM Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...> wrote:
+1 to Security & Compliance over Governance 

(Which will get abbreviated to SecComp and then everyone will think there’s a SIG on seccomp profiles. :) 

On Feb 2, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Sure - regulations are what folks have to be in compliance with. So long as the SIG doesn't start writing more regulations :-)

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:26, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
RegSec?

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, 14:24 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
+1 that "Governance" isn't a great name for this security-related SIG. I'd suggest "Security and Compliance". In many cases end users are concerned not just with security but also with associated standards compliance (PCI, GDPR, FedRamp etc). I believe the CNCF could add a lot of value by helping to establish what's necessary or best practice for meeting these compliance requirements.

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@...> wrote:
I agree with Sarah, and this is where most people missunderstand policy - they think of it in terms of governance instead of a set of rules which provides constraints for a cluster. Could we change it to security & policy or even just Security , or something else ?

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 6:31 AM Sarah Allen via Lists.Cncf.Io <sarahallen=google.com@...> wrote:
Overall the doc looks great -- thanks Alexis for your editorial work and Quinton for moving this forward!

One small point on naming of a specific SIG: 

Governance

security, authentication, authorization, auditing, policy enforcement

SPIFFE, SPIRE, Open Policy Agent, Notary, TUF,  Falco,


The word "governance" is often used to convey human processes of policy (e.g. how decisions are made, roles and responsibilities, etc.), and if I saw that in a list of SIGs, I probably wouldn't go looking there for security.  

Also note that the "Governance" section of the same doc addressees those same kinds of human policy concerns (e.g. "SIGs must have a documented governance process that encourages community participation and clear guidelines to avoid biased decision-making."), yet the topics for the SIG and list of projects are more about the software used to implement security and privacy, along with ensuring compliance (auditing, etc).

Also, note that some open source projects have a GOVERNANCE.md (or similarly named directory) to define project roles and decision-making process (examples: Nodecloudevents, SAFE, docker, k8s community)

Interested in what others think about this naming detail.

Thanks!
Sarah

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:34 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
My apologies Diane – I just reread the Operating Model section and you’re right - it’s not sufficiently clear on the point you raised.  I will add some wording to the effect of my email reply below.

Regards

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Diane Mueller-Klingspor <dmueller@...>
Date: Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 06:54
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>, Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

Quinton, 

If you are referring to this one sentence:

"The TOC makes use of this input to act as an informed and effective executive board to select and promote appropriate CNCF projects and practices, and to disseminate high quality information to end users and the cloud-native community in general." as the section discussion the creation/instantiation/proposal process for new SIGs"

I'd like a bit more clarity. If someone from the community (outside of the TOC) wishes to propose a SIG, what it the process? Or is it just the purview of the TOC on know when a new SIG should be created - then that would be nice to have clarified further.

If there's another section of the document, that you feel clarifies this SIG instantiation/proposal process, please point me in the right direction. I'm just not finding it.

Thanks for your help,

Diane Mueller
@openshiftcommon

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:16 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Thanks Diane

I think that’s adequately covered in the doc - the TOC creates and approves SIG’s.  If anyone believes we need to create more SIG’s, they should, by implication, ask the TOC to do that.  The current intention is to keep the number of SIGs relatively small, at least initially, and make sure they’re all highly effective before expanding the number of SIG's.

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Diane Mueller-Klingspor <dmueller@...>
Date: Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 05:27
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>, Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

Quinton et al,

Would it be possible to ask for a section in the Operator Model on how one goes about proposing a new SIG and the process for getting it approved?
(or if there is documentation on this topic elsewhere, reference/link to it in an appendix)?

Kind Regards,

Diane Mueller
Director, Community Development
Red Hat 
@openshiftcommon

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:47 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Greetings to the new TOC

Late last year Alexis kicked off a public discussion regarding forming CNCF SIG’s (initially referred to as Categories).  Since then a few of us have collaborated on soliciting further input, addressing all the comments, and producing a finalish proposal for consideration by the TOC.

Please give it a read and we can decide how to proceed at the next meeting this Tue, Feb 5


Q

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 07:58
To: Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>
Cc: Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>
Subject: Re: CNCF TOC SIGs Doc

can you put this link into the main doc as a comment?

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:57 PM Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...> wrote:

Hi Alexis,


Following our initial discussion in Seattle, Quinton and I had a discussion on this.   I captured the notes and applied them to the operating model.   I decided to make a copy of the doc and apply the changes to operating model section only - the current doc is hard to process due to the number of comments.


Here is the amended operating model content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ySri5jVrPaJjTJ_tZnDzcc4Xmcm4uKoUrHT6lVO6Pcw/edit#heading=h.6cl6hmsbz9fv


Kind Regards,

Alex





From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Sent: 09 January 2019 19:36
To: Erin Boyd; Sarah Allen
Cc: Bryan Cantrill; Chris Aniszczyk; Quinton Hoole; Alex Chircop; Matt Farina
Subject: CNCF TOC SIGs Doc
 
hi all

happy 2019!

how's this doc looking?  I daren't look.  can we show the toc an update next week?

a



On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:35 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+sarah

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, 13:35 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
Sounds good.
Please feel free to catch me on Slack.

Erin


On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:18 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thank you Erin.  Let's try and sync 1-1 during the week 

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018, 00:42 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
HI Alexis,
I think I am speaking on a panel at this time.
I can collaborate in the document.
Sorry about that.
Thanks,
Erin


On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:46 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

CNCF TOC meeting re SIGs Doc

meeting to discuss the Categories and SIGs doc
identify and divide up work tasks to clean up draft doc.
eg: we agree a new section plan and each take one section? or something
When
Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:30pm – 4:10pm Mountain Time - Denver
Where
lobby of the Sheraton Grand Seattle (map)
Joining info
meet.google.com/hud-jxti-yvh
Or dial: +1 929-299-3513  PIN: 706587657#
Calendar
eboyd@...
Who
Alexis Richardson - organizer
Matt Farina
Chris Aniszczyk

Going (eboyd@...)?   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this email at the account eboyd@... because you are subscribed for invitations on calendar eboyd@....

To stop receiving these emails, please log in to https://www.google.com/calendar/ and change your notification settings for this calendar.

Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to modify your RSVP response. Learn More.



--
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



--
Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Principle Engineer
IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145


Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal

Quinton Hoole
 

I fully expect some of the SIG names to be wordsmithed by the TOC Liaison, Chairs and other interested parties of that SIG during the chartering process, where the more detailed scope of the SIG will be defined and fleshed out.  I’d prefer to feed all this input into that process, rather than hash it all out here, now.

As a general principle, when we crafted the initial draft names, we aimed for short names, sufficiently broad to cover the domain.  As soon as we ended up with “X and Y and Z” type names, we tried to come up with a more succinct term that covered X and Y and Z as well as all closely related fields.   That’s why “Security” (too narrow), “Security and Policy” (too narrow and too verbose), and various others got chucked out.  "Security and Compliance” is probably one of the better names I’ve heard, and probably better than “Governance”, but lets hash all that out as part of the chartering process described above.

Q

From: Igor Mameshin <igor@...>
Date: Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 10:33
To: Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...>
Cc: Liz Rice <liz@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

"Security and Compliance" is a good name.  I would not limit it just to "Security".  Rapidly evolving cloud environments do require governance, and there is a broad range of policies that need to be automated - security, cloud tagging, data filtering, cost management, GDPR, data provenance, bias checkers for AI, etc.     

I suggest to update the SIG description to also include "policy compliance".  One of the CNCF projects is already providing capabilities around automated policy compliance beyond security:

This description may help to promote more work on automated policy compliance beyond security, which I think is very important.  May be "Security and Governance"?

Thank you,
Igor



On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:55 AM Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...> wrote:
+1 to Security & Compliance over Governance 

(Which will get abbreviated to SecComp and then everyone will think there’s a SIG on seccomp profiles. :) 

On Feb 2, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Sure - regulations are what folks have to be in compliance with. So long as the SIG doesn't start writing more regulations :-)

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:26, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
RegSec?

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, 14:24 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
+1 that "Governance" isn't a great name for this security-related SIG. I'd suggest "Security and Compliance". In many cases end users are concerned not just with security but also with associated standards compliance (PCI, GDPR, FedRamp etc). I believe the CNCF could add a lot of value by helping to establish what's necessary or best practice for meeting these compliance requirements.

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@...> wrote:
I agree with Sarah, and this is where most people missunderstand policy - they think of it in terms of governance instead of a set of rules which provides constraints for a cluster. Could we change it to security & policy or even just Security , or something else ?

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 6:31 AM Sarah Allen via Lists.Cncf.Io <sarahallen=google.com@...> wrote:
Overall the doc looks great -- thanks Alexis for your editorial work and Quinton for moving this forward!

One small point on naming of a specific SIG: 

Governance

security, authentication, authorization, auditing, policy enforcement

SPIFFE, SPIRE, Open Policy Agent, Notary, TUF,  Falco,


The word "governance" is often used to convey human processes of policy (e.g. how decisions are made, roles and responsibilities, etc.), and if I saw that in a list of SIGs, I probably wouldn't go looking there for security.  

Also note that the "Governance" section of the same doc addressees those same kinds of human policy concerns (e.g. "SIGs must have a documented governance process that encourages community participation and clear guidelines to avoid biased decision-making."), yet the topics for the SIG and list of projects are more about the software used to implement security and privacy, along with ensuring compliance (auditing, etc).

Also, note that some open source projects have a GOVERNANCE.md (or similarly named directory) to define project roles and decision-making process (examples: Nodecloudevents, SAFE, docker, k8s community)

Interested in what others think about this naming detail.

Thanks!
Sarah

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:34 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
My apologies Diane – I just reread the Operating Model section and you’re right - it’s not sufficiently clear on the point you raised.  I will add some wording to the effect of my email reply below.

Regards

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Diane Mueller-Klingspor <dmueller@...>
Date: Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 06:54
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>, Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

Quinton, 

If you are referring to this one sentence:

"The TOC makes use of this input to act as an informed and effective executive board to select and promote appropriate CNCF projects and practices, and to disseminate high quality information to end users and the cloud-native community in general." as the section discussion the creation/instantiation/proposal process for new SIGs"

I'd like a bit more clarity. If someone from the community (outside of the TOC) wishes to propose a SIG, what it the process? Or is it just the purview of the TOC on know when a new SIG should be created - then that would be nice to have clarified further.

If there's another section of the document, that you feel clarifies this SIG instantiation/proposal process, please point me in the right direction. I'm just not finding it.

Thanks for your help,

Diane Mueller
@openshiftcommon

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:16 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Thanks Diane

I think that’s adequately covered in the doc - the TOC creates and approves SIG’s.  If anyone believes we need to create more SIG’s, they should, by implication, ask the TOC to do that.  The current intention is to keep the number of SIGs relatively small, at least initially, and make sure they’re all highly effective before expanding the number of SIG's.

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Diane Mueller-Klingspor <dmueller@...>
Date: Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 05:27
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>, Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

Quinton et al,

Would it be possible to ask for a section in the Operator Model on how one goes about proposing a new SIG and the process for getting it approved?
(or if there is documentation on this topic elsewhere, reference/link to it in an appendix)?

Kind Regards,

Diane Mueller
Director, Community Development
Red Hat 
@openshiftcommon

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:47 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Greetings to the new TOC

Late last year Alexis kicked off a public discussion regarding forming CNCF SIG’s (initially referred to as Categories).  Since then a few of us have collaborated on soliciting further input, addressing all the comments, and producing a finalish proposal for consideration by the TOC.

Please give it a read and we can decide how to proceed at the next meeting this Tue, Feb 5


Q

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 07:58
To: Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>
Cc: Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>
Subject: Re: CNCF TOC SIGs Doc

can you put this link into the main doc as a comment?

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:57 PM Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...> wrote:

Hi Alexis,


Following our initial discussion in Seattle, Quinton and I had a discussion on this.   I captured the notes and applied them to the operating model.   I decided to make a copy of the doc and apply the changes to operating model section only - the current doc is hard to process due to the number of comments.


Here is the amended operating model content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ySri5jVrPaJjTJ_tZnDzcc4Xmcm4uKoUrHT6lVO6Pcw/edit#heading=h.6cl6hmsbz9fv


Kind Regards,

Alex





From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Sent: 09 January 2019 19:36
To: Erin Boyd; Sarah Allen
Cc: Bryan Cantrill; Chris Aniszczyk; Quinton Hoole; Alex Chircop; Matt Farina
Subject: CNCF TOC SIGs Doc
 
hi all

happy 2019!

how's this doc looking?  I daren't look.  can we show the toc an update next week?

a



On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:35 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+sarah

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, 13:35 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
Sounds good.
Please feel free to catch me on Slack.

Erin


On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:18 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thank you Erin.  Let's try and sync 1-1 during the week 

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018, 00:42 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
HI Alexis,
I think I am speaking on a panel at this time.
I can collaborate in the document.
Sorry about that.
Thanks,
Erin


On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:46 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

CNCF TOC meeting re SIGs Doc

meeting to discuss the Categories and SIGs doc
identify and divide up work tasks to clean up draft doc.
eg: we agree a new section plan and each take one section? or something
When
Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:30pm – 4:10pm Mountain Time - Denver
Where
lobby of the Sheraton Grand Seattle (map)
Joining info
meet.google.com/hud-jxti-yvh
Or dial: +1 929-299-3513  PIN: 706587657#
Calendar
eboyd@...
Who
Alexis Richardson - organizer
Matt Farina
Chris Aniszczyk

Going (eboyd@...)?   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this email at the account eboyd@... because you are subscribed for invitations on calendar eboyd@....

To stop receiving these emails, please log in to https://www.google.com/calendar/ and change your notification settings for this calendar.

Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to modify your RSVP response. Learn More.



--
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



--
Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Principle Engineer
IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145


Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal

Igor Mameshin
 

"Security and Compliance" is a good name.  I would not limit it just to "Security".  Rapidly evolving cloud environments do require governance, and there is a broad range of policies that need to be automated - security, cloud tagging, data filtering, cost management, GDPR, data provenance, bias checkers for AI, etc.     

I suggest to update the SIG description to also include "policy compliance".  One of the CNCF projects is already providing capabilities around automated policy compliance beyond security:

This description may help to promote more work on automated policy compliance beyond security, which I think is very important.  May be "Security and Governance"?

Thank you,
Igor



On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:55 AM Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...> wrote:
+1 to Security & Compliance over Governance 

(Which will get abbreviated to SecComp and then everyone will think there’s a SIG on seccomp profiles. :) 

On Feb 2, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Sure - regulations are what folks have to be in compliance with. So long as the SIG doesn't start writing more regulations :-)

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:26, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
RegSec?

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, 14:24 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
+1 that "Governance" isn't a great name for this security-related SIG. I'd suggest "Security and Compliance". In many cases end users are concerned not just with security but also with associated standards compliance (PCI, GDPR, FedRamp etc). I believe the CNCF could add a lot of value by helping to establish what's necessary or best practice for meeting these compliance requirements.

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@...> wrote:
I agree with Sarah, and this is where most people missunderstand policy - they think of it in terms of governance instead of a set of rules which provides constraints for a cluster. Could we change it to security & policy or even just Security , or something else ?

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 6:31 AM Sarah Allen via Lists.Cncf.Io <sarahallen=google.com@...> wrote:
Overall the doc looks great -- thanks Alexis for your editorial work and Quinton for moving this forward!

One small point on naming of a specific SIG: 

Governance

security, authentication, authorization, auditing, policy enforcement

SPIFFE, SPIRE, Open Policy Agent, Notary, TUF,  Falco,


The word "governance" is often used to convey human processes of policy (e.g. how decisions are made, roles and responsibilities, etc.), and if I saw that in a list of SIGs, I probably wouldn't go looking there for security.  

Also note that the "Governance" section of the same doc addressees those same kinds of human policy concerns (e.g. "SIGs must have a documented governance process that encourages community participation and clear guidelines to avoid biased decision-making."), yet the topics for the SIG and list of projects are more about the software used to implement security and privacy, along with ensuring compliance (auditing, etc).

Also, note that some open source projects have a GOVERNANCE.md (or similarly named directory) to define project roles and decision-making process (examples: Nodecloudevents, SAFE, docker, k8s community)

Interested in what others think about this naming detail.

Thanks!
Sarah

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:34 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
My apologies Diane – I just reread the Operating Model section and you’re right - it’s not sufficiently clear on the point you raised.  I will add some wording to the effect of my email reply below.

Regards

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Diane Mueller-Klingspor <dmueller@...>
Date: Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 06:54
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>, Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

Quinton, 

If you are referring to this one sentence:

"The TOC makes use of this input to act as an informed and effective executive board to select and promote appropriate CNCF projects and practices, and to disseminate high quality information to end users and the cloud-native community in general." as the section discussion the creation/instantiation/proposal process for new SIGs"

I'd like a bit more clarity. If someone from the community (outside of the TOC) wishes to propose a SIG, what it the process? Or is it just the purview of the TOC on know when a new SIG should be created - then that would be nice to have clarified further.

If there's another section of the document, that you feel clarifies this SIG instantiation/proposal process, please point me in the right direction. I'm just not finding it.

Thanks for your help,

Diane Mueller
@openshiftcommon

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:16 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Thanks Diane

I think that’s adequately covered in the doc - the TOC creates and approves SIG’s.  If anyone believes we need to create more SIG’s, they should, by implication, ask the TOC to do that.  The current intention is to keep the number of SIGs relatively small, at least initially, and make sure they’re all highly effective before expanding the number of SIG's.

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Diane Mueller-Klingspor <dmueller@...>
Date: Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 05:27
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>, Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal

Quinton et al,

Would it be possible to ask for a section in the Operator Model on how one goes about proposing a new SIG and the process for getting it approved?
(or if there is documentation on this topic elsewhere, reference/link to it in an appendix)?

Kind Regards,

Diane Mueller
Director, Community Development
Red Hat 
@openshiftcommon

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:47 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Greetings to the new TOC

Late last year Alexis kicked off a public discussion regarding forming CNCF SIG’s (initially referred to as Categories).  Since then a few of us have collaborated on soliciting further input, addressing all the comments, and producing a finalish proposal for consideration by the TOC.

Please give it a read and we can decide how to proceed at the next meeting this Tue, Feb 5


Q

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 07:58
To: Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...>
Cc: Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, Sarah Allen <sarahallen@...>, Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, Matt Farina <matt.farina@...>
Subject: Re: CNCF TOC SIGs Doc

can you put this link into the main doc as a comment?

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:57 PM Alex Chircop <alex.chircop@...> wrote:

Hi Alexis,


Following our initial discussion in Seattle, Quinton and I had a discussion on this.   I captured the notes and applied them to the operating model.   I decided to make a copy of the doc and apply the changes to operating model section only - the current doc is hard to process due to the number of comments.


Here is the amended operating model content: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ySri5jVrPaJjTJ_tZnDzcc4Xmcm4uKoUrHT6lVO6Pcw/edit#heading=h.6cl6hmsbz9fv


Kind Regards,

Alex





From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Sent: 09 January 2019 19:36
To: Erin Boyd; Sarah Allen
Cc: Bryan Cantrill; Chris Aniszczyk; Quinton Hoole; Alex Chircop; Matt Farina
Subject: CNCF TOC SIGs Doc
 
hi all

happy 2019!

how's this doc looking?  I daren't look.  can we show the toc an update next week?

a



On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:35 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+sarah

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, 13:35 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
Sounds good.
Please feel free to catch me on Slack.

Erin


On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:18 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thank you Erin.  Let's try and sync 1-1 during the week 

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018, 00:42 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
HI Alexis,
I think I am speaking on a panel at this time.
I can collaborate in the document.
Sorry about that.
Thanks,
Erin


On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 11:46 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

CNCF TOC meeting re SIGs Doc

meeting to discuss the Categories and SIGs doc
identify and divide up work tasks to clean up draft doc.
eg: we agree a new section plan and each take one section? or something
When
Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:30pm – 4:10pm Mountain Time - Denver
Where
lobby of the Sheraton Grand Seattle (map)
Joining info
meet.google.com/hud-jxti-yvh
Or dial: +1 929-299-3513  PIN: 706587657#
Calendar
eboyd@...
Who
Alexis Richardson - organizer
Matt Farina
Chris Aniszczyk

Going (eboyd@...)?   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar

You are receiving this email at the account eboyd@... because you are subscribed for invitations on calendar eboyd@....

To stop receiving these emails, please log in to https://www.google.com/calendar/ and change your notification settings for this calendar.

Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to modify your RSVP response. Learn More.



--
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



--
Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Principle Engineer
IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145

4861 - 4880 of 7729