Date   

Re: [VOTE] containerd moving to graduation

Liz Rice
 

+1 nb


On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 5:21 PM Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

+1 non-binding


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

"Chris Aniszczyk" ---02/18/2019 11:59:29 AM---containerd has requested to move to the graduation maturity level: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com



From: "Chris Aniszczyk" <caniszczyk@...>
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 02/18/2019 11:59 AM
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] containerd moving to graduation
Sent by: cncf-toc@...





containerd has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165

The containerd community believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- Have a healthy number of committers and at least two from different organizations: Containerd has had a variety of maintainers and reviewers since its inception, and currently have 12 committers representing Docker, NTT, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Facebook, Tesla, and Cruise Automation. They also have reviewers representing Alibaba, ZTE, Huawei, Docker, Microsoft and an independent developer.

- Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users:

Containerd began life prior to its CNCF as a lower-layer runtime manager for the Docker engine. Continuing today, containerd has widest usage and adoption as the layer between the Docker engine and the OCI runc executor. However, as containerd and its CRI plugin project have merged in January 2018, the combined use of containerd and the CRI plugin has grown to include several public cloud providers, as well as several projects who are attracted to the simplicity of the Go client API library for embedding container runtime capabilities.

IBM Cloud Kubernetes Service (IKS)
IBM Cloud Private (ICP)
Google Cloud Kubernetes Engine (GKE) [offers containerd in "alpha clusters"]
Cloud Foundry
Alibaba's PouchContainer
Rancher's Rio project
Eliot
Balena
LinuxKit
BuildKit
AWS Firecracker
Kata containers
Docker engine

- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/containerd/containerd/graphs/contributors + https://containerd.devstats.cncf.io + https://all.devstats.cncf.io/d/54/project-health?orgId=1&var-repogroup_name=containerd

- Have achieved a CII badge: https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en/projects/1271

- Define a governance model: https://github.com/containerd/project/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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



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


Re: [VOTE] containerd moving to graduation

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

+1 non-binding


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

"Chris Aniszczyk" ---02/18/2019 11:59:29 AM---containerd has requested to move to the graduation maturity level: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com

From: "Chris Aniszczyk" <caniszczyk@...>
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 02/18/2019 11:59 AM
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] containerd moving to graduation
Sent by: cncf-toc@...





containerd has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165

The containerd community believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- Have a healthy number of committers and at least two from different organizations: Containerd has had a variety of maintainers and reviewers since its inception, and currently have 12 committers representing Docker, NTT, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Facebook, Tesla, and Cruise Automation. They also have reviewers representing Alibaba, ZTE, Huawei, Docker, Microsoft and an independent developer.

- Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users:

Containerd began life prior to its CNCF as a lower-layer runtime manager for the Docker engine. Continuing today, containerd has widest usage and adoption as the layer between the Docker engine and the OCI runc executor. However, as containerd and its CRI plugin project have merged in January 2018, the combined use of containerd and the CRI plugin has grown to include several public cloud providers, as well as several projects who are attracted to the simplicity of the Go client API library for embedding container runtime capabilities.

IBM Cloud Kubernetes Service (IKS)
IBM Cloud Private (ICP)
Google Cloud Kubernetes Engine (GKE) [offers containerd in "alpha clusters"]
Cloud Foundry
Alibaba's PouchContainer
Rancher's Rio project
Eliot
Balena
LinuxKit
BuildKit
AWS Firecracker
Kata containers
Docker engine

- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/containerd/containerd/graphs/contributors + https://containerd.devstats.cncf.io + https://all.devstats.cncf.io/d/54/project-health?orgId=1&var-repogroup_name=containerd

- Have achieved a CII badge: https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en/projects/1271

- Define a governance model: https://github.com/containerd/project/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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




Re: [VOTE] containerd moving to graduation

Justin Cormack
 

+1 (non binding)


On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 4:59 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
containerd has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165

The containerd community believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- Have a healthy number of committers and at least two from different organizations: Containerd has had a variety of maintainers and reviewers since its inception, and currently have 12 committers representing Docker, NTT, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Facebook, Tesla, and Cruise Automation. They also have reviewers representing Alibaba, ZTE, Huawei, Docker, Microsoft and an independent developer.

- Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users:

Containerd began life prior to its CNCF as a lower-layer runtime manager for the Docker engine. Continuing today, containerd has widest usage and adoption as the layer between the Docker engine and the OCI runc executor. However, as containerd and its CRI plugin project have merged in January 2018, the combined use of containerd and the CRI plugin has grown to include several public cloud providers, as well as several projects who are attracted to the simplicity of the Go client API library for embedding container runtime capabilities.

IBM Cloud Kubernetes Service (IKS)
IBM Cloud Private (ICP)
Google Cloud Kubernetes Engine (GKE) [offers containerd in "alpha clusters"]
Cloud Foundry
Alibaba's PouchContainer
Rancher's Rio project
Eliot
Balena
LinuxKit
BuildKit
AWS Firecracker
Kata containers
Docker engine

- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/containerd/containerd/graphs/contributors + https://containerd.devstats.cncf.io + https://all.devstats.cncf.io/d/54/project-health?orgId=1&var-repogroup_name=containerd

- Have achieved a CII badge: https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en/projects/1271

- Define a governance model: https://github.com/containerd/project/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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


Re: [VOTE] containerd moving to graduation

Phil Estes
 

+1 (non-binding)

Thanks,
- Phil

Chris Aniszczyk wrote on 2/18/19 11:59 AM:

containerd has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165

The containerd community believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- Have a healthy number of committers and at least two from different organizations: Containerd has had a variety of maintainers and reviewers since its inception, and currently have 12 committers representing Docker, NTT, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Facebook, Tesla, and Cruise Automation. They also have reviewers representing Alibaba, ZTE, Huawei, Docker, Microsoft and an independent developer.

- Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users:

Containerd began life prior to its CNCF as a lower-layer runtime manager for the Docker engine. Continuing today, containerd has widest usage and adoption as the layer between the Docker engine and the OCI runc executor. However, as containerd and its CRI plugin project have merged in January 2018, the combined use of containerd and the CRI plugin has grown to include several public cloud providers, as well as several projects who are attracted to the simplicity of the Go client API library for embedding container runtime capabilities.

IBM Cloud Kubernetes Service (IKS)
IBM Cloud Private (ICP)
Google Cloud Kubernetes Engine (GKE) [offers containerd in "alpha clusters"]
Cloud Foundry
Alibaba's PouchContainer
Rancher's Rio project
Eliot
Balena
LinuxKit
BuildKit
AWS Firecracker
Kata containers
Docker engine

- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/containerd/containerd/graphs/contributors + https://containerd.devstats.cncf.io + https://all.devstats.cncf.io/d/54/project-health?orgId=1&var-repogroup_name=containerd

- Have achieved a CII badge: https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en/projects/1271

- Define a governance model: https://github.com/containerd/project/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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


Re: [VOTE] containerd moving to graduation

Richard Hartmann
 

+1 nb

Sent by mobile; please excuse my brevity.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 17:59 Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@... wrote:
containerd has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165

The containerd community believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- Have a healthy number of committers and at least two from different organizations: Containerd has had a variety of maintainers and reviewers since its inception, and currently have 12 committers representing Docker, NTT, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Facebook, Tesla, and Cruise Automation. They also have reviewers representing Alibaba, ZTE, Huawei, Docker, Microsoft and an independent developer.

- Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users:

Containerd began life prior to its CNCF as a lower-layer runtime manager for the Docker engine. Continuing today, containerd has widest usage and adoption as the layer between the Docker engine and the OCI runc executor. However, as containerd and its CRI plugin project have merged in January 2018, the combined use of containerd and the CRI plugin has grown to include several public cloud providers, as well as several projects who are attracted to the simplicity of the Go client API library for embedding container runtime capabilities.

IBM Cloud Kubernetes Service (IKS)
IBM Cloud Private (ICP)
Google Cloud Kubernetes Engine (GKE) [offers containerd in "alpha clusters"]
Cloud Foundry
Alibaba's PouchContainer
Rancher's Rio project
Eliot
Balena
LinuxKit
BuildKit
AWS Firecracker
Kata containers
Docker engine

- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/containerd/containerd/graphs/contributors + https://containerd.devstats.cncf.io + https://all.devstats.cncf.io/d/54/project-health?orgId=1&var-repogroup_name=containerd

- Have achieved a CII badge: https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en/projects/1271

- Define a governance model: https://github.com/containerd/project/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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


Re: [VOTE] containerd moving to graduation

Ihor Dvoretskyi
 

+1 (non-binding).

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 6:59 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
containerd has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165

The containerd community believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- Have a healthy number of committers and at least two from different organizations: Containerd has had a variety of maintainers and reviewers since its inception, and currently have 12 committers representing Docker, NTT, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Facebook, Tesla, and Cruise Automation. They also have reviewers representing Alibaba, ZTE, Huawei, Docker, Microsoft and an independent developer.

- Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users:

Containerd began life prior to its CNCF as a lower-layer runtime manager for the Docker engine. Continuing today, containerd has widest usage and adoption as the layer between the Docker engine and the OCI runc executor. However, as containerd and its CRI plugin project have merged in January 2018, the combined use of containerd and the CRI plugin has grown to include several public cloud providers, as well as several projects who are attracted to the simplicity of the Go client API library for embedding container runtime capabilities.

IBM Cloud Kubernetes Service (IKS)
IBM Cloud Private (ICP)
Google Cloud Kubernetes Engine (GKE) [offers containerd in "alpha clusters"]
Cloud Foundry
Alibaba's PouchContainer
Rancher's Rio project
Eliot
Balena
LinuxKit
BuildKit
AWS Firecracker
Kata containers
Docker engine

- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/containerd/containerd/graphs/contributors + https://containerd.devstats.cncf.io + https://all.devstats.cncf.io/d/54/project-health?orgId=1&var-repogroup_name=containerd

- Have achieved a CII badge: https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en/projects/1271

- Define a governance model: https://github.com/containerd/project/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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


[VOTE] containerd moving to graduation

Chris Aniszczyk
 

containerd has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165

The containerd community believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- Have a healthy number of committers and at least two from different organizations: Containerd has had a variety of maintainers and reviewers since its inception, and currently have 12 committers representing Docker, NTT, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Facebook, Tesla, and Cruise Automation. They also have reviewers representing Alibaba, ZTE, Huawei, Docker, Microsoft and an independent developer.

- Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users:

Containerd began life prior to its CNCF as a lower-layer runtime manager for the Docker engine. Continuing today, containerd has widest usage and adoption as the layer between the Docker engine and the OCI runc executor. However, as containerd and its CRI plugin project have merged in January 2018, the combined use of containerd and the CRI plugin has grown to include several public cloud providers, as well as several projects who are attracted to the simplicity of the Go client API library for embedding container runtime capabilities.

IBM Cloud Kubernetes Service (IKS)
IBM Cloud Private (ICP)
Google Cloud Kubernetes Engine (GKE) [offers containerd in "alpha clusters"]
Cloud Foundry
Alibaba's PouchContainer
Rancher's Rio project
Eliot
Balena
LinuxKit
BuildKit
AWS Firecracker
Kata containers
Docker engine

- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/containerd/containerd/graphs/contributors + https://containerd.devstats.cncf.io + https://all.devstats.cncf.io/d/54/project-health?orgId=1&var-repogroup_name=containerd

- Have achieved a CII badge: https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en/projects/1271

- Define a governance model: https://github.com/containerd/project/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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


Re: Final RFC: containerd graduation

Zhang Lei
 

+1 for kicking the vote :-)


On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 12:31 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
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


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

4461 - 4480 of 7337