Date   

Re: Vote: Updating CNCF Project Proposal Process

alexis richardson
 

+1


On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, 17:16 Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Just following up on Alexis' desire to get consensus from the TOC to solidify the project proposal process from the last couple of TOC meetings so we can put it on the website.

The first suggestion is to move the project proposal process to GitHub. This will make it easier to find and submit project proposals. It's also working well for CoreDNS who is iterating on their project proposal on GitHub now: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/9/files

Second, Alexis wanted to get consensus on the project proposal process having four stages which I've listed below. Dear TOC, please reply +1 if you support this and we'll update everything on our end:

---

The project proposal process within CNCF has four stages.

Stage 1: Discovery

Project contacts CNCF. Informal conversation about mission of CNCF and how CNCF can help Project. At this stage, the Project should decide if it potentially wishes to be in the CNCF. The representatives of the CNCF should decide if they are comfortable recommending a move to Stage 2.

Stage 2: Introduction

Project makes a 20 minute presentation to the TOC during a scheduled TOC meeting. In the first 10 minutes: present a slide deck should explain why the project exists, who is using it, and where it is going.  Not more than 5 slides.  In the second 10 minutes: Q&A.

At this stage, the TOC has the opportunity to invite a Project to make a formal Proposal.  This invitation occurs when, in public forum, a voting TOC member agrees to act as Project Sponsor and the Project agrees to proceed.

Stage 3: Proposal  

Project and Sponsor create a written proposal using the published proposal template on GithUb. At this stage, the TOC may provide feedback and ask questions. The TOC may request a formal presentation of the Proposal during one of its regular meetings.  This stage is completed when, during a TOC meeting, the TOC states that a vote will take place.

Stage 4: Vote

The TOC votes on the Project Proposal on the public TOC mailing list.  A successful vote requires 6 TOC members. Projects that are successful will then proceed to Incubation.

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Vote: Updating CNCF Project Proposal Process

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Just following up on Alexis' desire to get consensus from the TOC to solidify the project proposal process from the last couple of TOC meetings so we can put it on the website.

The first suggestion is to move the project proposal process to GitHub. This will make it easier to find and submit project proposals. It's also working well for CoreDNS who is iterating on their project proposal on GitHub now: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/9/files

Second, Alexis wanted to get consensus on the project proposal process having four stages which I've listed below. Dear TOC, please reply +1 if you support this and we'll update everything on our end:

---

The project proposal process within CNCF has four stages.

Stage 1: Discovery

Project contacts CNCF. Informal conversation about mission of CNCF and how CNCF can help Project. At this stage, the Project should decide if it potentially wishes to be in the CNCF. The representatives of the CNCF should decide if they are comfortable recommending a move to Stage 2.

Stage 2: Introduction

Project makes a 20 minute presentation to the TOC during a scheduled TOC meeting. In the first 10 minutes: present a slide deck should explain why the project exists, who is using it, and where it is going.  Not more than 5 slides.  In the second 10 minutes: Q&A.

At this stage, the TOC has the opportunity to invite a Project to make a formal Proposal.  This invitation occurs when, in public forum, a voting TOC member agrees to act as Project Sponsor and the Project agrees to proceed.

Stage 3: Proposal  

Project and Sponsor create a written proposal using the published proposal template on GithUb. At this stage, the TOC may provide feedback and ask questions. The TOC may request a formal presentation of the Proposal during one of its regular meetings.  This stage is completed when, during a TOC meeting, the TOC states that a vote will take place.

Stage 4: Vote

The TOC votes on the Project Proposal on the public TOC mailing list.  A successful vote requires 6 TOC members. Projects that are successful will then proceed to Incubation.

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


draft TOC slides for tomorrow

alexis richardson
 


Software Circus: CNCF Community Opportunity

Brett Preston <bpreston@...>
 

Members of the CNCF technical community,

As the Community Sponsor of Software Circus (Amsterdam) August 31 - September 2, 2016; the CNCF has access to 20 complimentary tickets.

Software Circus is a three day event where software enthusiasts, startups and established companies, devs, ops, IT architects, leaders, strategists and entrepreneurs all come together to learn, be inspired and be entertained.

Given high demand for tickets, we will offer up 2 tickets per company, on a first-come-first-serve basis. Reserve your tickets by emailing events@... by EOD Friday, August 19. Within your request, note if you could use more than 2 tickets, and if there are any tickets remaining after the 19th, we will work to accommodate requests for extra tickets that we are able to fulfill.

Thank you!


Brett

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

Google Talk: bpreston@...
Skype: bprestoncf


Re: Why you should host your project at CNCF

alexis richardson
 

Hi everyone

Please do take a look at Dan's doc and comment!

alexis


On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:55 PM Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hi, I have proposed language for the website on why projects should host at CNCF. It will be added to https://cncf.io/projects.

I'd appreciate if you could review on Google Docs and add any comments there:

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Why you should host your project at CNCF

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

Hi, I have proposed language for the website on why projects should host at CNCF. It will be added to https://cncf.io/projects.

I'd appreciate if you could review on Google Docs and add any comments there:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14EZghMg8MQmaDTnBZwZTwrBGwvdJtmey1s440rYiVZE/edit?usp=sharing
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000


Re: RFC: Minio

alexis richardson
 

I would like to see docs for the design and ux of distributed minio per my q on today's call, please. AB mentioned that these are in the works.


On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, 17:30 Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The Minio project presented at today's TOC meeting:

See slides 18-22:

If anyone in the TOC and the wider community has questions for the project or want to state support for it being part of CNCF, now is the time!

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


RFC: Minio

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The Minio project presented at today's TOC meeting:

See slides 18-22:

If anyone in the TOC and the wider community has questions for the project or want to state support for it being part of CNCF, now is the time!

Thanks!

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


RFC: Heron

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The Heron project presented at today's TOC meeting:
https://blog.twitter.com/2016/open-sourcing-twitter-heron

See slides 14-17:

If anyone in the TOC and the wider community has questions for the project or want to state support for it being part of CNCF, now is the time!

Thanks!

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


RFC: fluentd

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The fluentd project presented at today's TOC meeting:
http://www.fluentd.org/

See slides 9-13:

If anyone in the TOC and the wider community has questions for the project or want to state support for it being part of CNCF, now is the time!

Thanks!


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


draft TOC slides for this week

alexis richardson
 

Hi all

This week we have the privilege of no less than THREE project "intro
presentations". They dominate the agenda, and the full hour will
likely be used.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ZZFn7EfySQuAFBOH_EWGKifzXTWSSqpnFNuJLAXVBmk/edit#slide=id.gd5ae4e962_2_136

a


Re: proposed change to our proposals process

alexis richardson
 

Noted!




On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Sarah Novotny <sarahnovotny@...> wrote:
In addition to definitions of "Incubation" status and benefits, it would be good to know what it takes to progress to a full acceptance.

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:40 AM Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Doug

Agreed - I shall add this to the agenda for this week, so that we can have a vote soon.

a


On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

Alexis,
per the charter [1], in section 9, it says:
All such contributions should meet a set criteria created by the TOC and ratified by the Governing Board.
I would suggest that the TOC work on getting this ratification done fairly soon so that we don't delay in getting new projects on-boarded and so that we have a clear, agreed upon and consistent set of criteria by which new projects will be evaluated.


[1] https://cncf.io/about/charter

thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---07/29/2016 01:29:33 AM---Hi all, As we talk to more projects, a consistent proposals process is

From: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Date: 07/29/2016 01:29 AM
Subject: [cncf-toc] proposed change to our proposals process
Sent by: cncf-toc-bounces@...





Hi all,

As we talk to more projects, a consistent proposals process is
emerging.  I'd like to describe how this is working now, with a view
to the TOC blessing the model.  After this, let's ask Dan's team to
publish a summary of the process on the CNCF website, plus collateral
changes [ shown in brackets below ].

alexis



Stages are:

1. Discovery.  Project contacts CNCF or is approached by TOC / ED
staff.  Informal conversation about mission of CNCF and how CNCF can
help Project.

At this stage, the Project should decide if it potentially wishes to
be in the CNCF.  The representatives of the CNCF should decide if they
are comfortable recommending a move to stage 2.

[ CNCF website should state benefits of CNCF to Projects ]

2. Introduction.  Project makes a 20 minute presentation to the TOC
during a scheduled TOC meeting.

In the first 10 minutes: present a slide deck should explain why the
project exists, who is using it, and where it is going.  Not more than
5 slides.  In the second 10 minutes: Q&A.

At this stage, the TOC has the opportunity to invite a Project to make
a formal Proposal.  This invitation occurs when, in public forum, a
voting TOC member agrees to act as Project Sponsor and the Project
agrees to proceed.

[ CNCF website should link to example 5-slide deck eg. Prometheus intro ]

3. Proposal.  Project and Sponsor create a written proposal using the
published proposal template.  On completion, this document must be
posted to the CNCF proposals list and TOC list.

At this stage, the TOC may provide feedback and ask questions.  The
TOC may request a formal presentation of the Proposal during one of
its regular meetings.  This stage is completed when, during a TOC
meeting, the TOC states that a vote will take place.

[ CNCF website should link to template plus example proposal doc eg.
Prometheus ]

4. Vote.  The TOC votes on the Project Proposal on the public TOC
mailing list.  A successful vote requires 6 TOC members, out of a
possible 9.  Projects that are successful will then proceed to
Incubation.

[ CNCF website should link to the charter statements that explain
voting.  Also, CNCF website should describe Incubation. ]

Final note: stages 2 and 3 may not happen in the same meeting.
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




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


Re: proposed change to our proposals process

Sarah Novotny <sarahnovotny@...>
 

In addition to definitions of "Incubation" status and benefits, it would be good to know what it takes to progress to a full acceptance.


On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:40 AM Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Doug

Agreed - I shall add this to the agenda for this week, so that we can have a vote soon.

a


On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

Alexis,
per the charter [1], in section 9, it says:
All such contributions should meet a set criteria created by the TOC and ratified by the Governing Board.
I would suggest that the TOC work on getting this ratification done fairly soon so that we don't delay in getting new projects on-boarded and so that we have a clear, agreed upon and consistent set of criteria by which new projects will be evaluated.


[1] https://cncf.io/about/charter

thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---07/29/2016 01:29:33 AM---Hi all, As we talk to more projects, a consistent proposals process is

From: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Date: 07/29/2016 01:29 AM
Subject: [cncf-toc] proposed change to our proposals process
Sent by: cncf-toc-bounces@...





Hi all,

As we talk to more projects, a consistent proposals process is
emerging.  I'd like to describe how this is working now, with a view
to the TOC blessing the model.  After this, let's ask Dan's team to
publish a summary of the process on the CNCF website, plus collateral
changes [ shown in brackets below ].

alexis



Stages are:

1. Discovery.  Project contacts CNCF or is approached by TOC / ED
staff.  Informal conversation about mission of CNCF and how CNCF can
help Project.

At this stage, the Project should decide if it potentially wishes to
be in the CNCF.  The representatives of the CNCF should decide if they
are comfortable recommending a move to stage 2.

[ CNCF website should state benefits of CNCF to Projects ]

2. Introduction.  Project makes a 20 minute presentation to the TOC
during a scheduled TOC meeting.

In the first 10 minutes: present a slide deck should explain why the
project exists, who is using it, and where it is going.  Not more than
5 slides.  In the second 10 minutes: Q&A.

At this stage, the TOC has the opportunity to invite a Project to make
a formal Proposal.  This invitation occurs when, in public forum, a
voting TOC member agrees to act as Project Sponsor and the Project
agrees to proceed.

[ CNCF website should link to example 5-slide deck eg. Prometheus intro ]

3. Proposal.  Project and Sponsor create a written proposal using the
published proposal template.  On completion, this document must be
posted to the CNCF proposals list and TOC list.

At this stage, the TOC may provide feedback and ask questions.  The
TOC may request a formal presentation of the Proposal during one of
its regular meetings.  This stage is completed when, during a TOC
meeting, the TOC states that a vote will take place.

[ CNCF website should link to template plus example proposal doc eg.
Prometheus ]

4. Vote.  The TOC votes on the Project Proposal on the public TOC
mailing list.  A successful vote requires 6 TOC members, out of a
possible 9.  Projects that are successful will then proceed to
Incubation.

[ CNCF website should link to the charter statements that explain
voting.  Also, CNCF website should describe Incubation. ]

Final note: stages 2 and 3 may not happen in the same meeting.
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




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


Re: proposed change to our proposals process

alexis richardson
 

Doug

Agreed - I shall add this to the agenda for this week, so that we can have a vote soon.

a


On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

Alexis,
per the charter [1], in section 9, it says:
All such contributions should meet a set criteria created by the TOC and ratified by the Governing Board.
I would suggest that the TOC work on getting this ratification done fairly soon so that we don't delay in getting new projects on-boarded and so that we have a clear, agreed upon and consistent set of criteria by which new projects will be evaluated.


[1] https://cncf.io/about/charter

thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---07/29/2016 01:29:33 AM---Hi all, As we talk to more projects, a consistent proposals process is

From: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Date: 07/29/2016 01:29 AM
Subject: [cncf-toc] proposed change to our proposals process
Sent by: cncf-toc-bounces@...





Hi all,

As we talk to more projects, a consistent proposals process is
emerging.  I'd like to describe how this is working now, with a view
to the TOC blessing the model.  After this, let's ask Dan's team to
publish a summary of the process on the CNCF website, plus collateral
changes [ shown in brackets below ].

alexis



Stages are:

1. Discovery.  Project contacts CNCF or is approached by TOC / ED
staff.  Informal conversation about mission of CNCF and how CNCF can
help Project.

At this stage, the Project should decide if it potentially wishes to
be in the CNCF.  The representatives of the CNCF should decide if they
are comfortable recommending a move to stage 2.

[ CNCF website should state benefits of CNCF to Projects ]

2. Introduction.  Project makes a 20 minute presentation to the TOC
during a scheduled TOC meeting.

In the first 10 minutes: present a slide deck should explain why the
project exists, who is using it, and where it is going.  Not more than
5 slides.  In the second 10 minutes: Q&A.

At this stage, the TOC has the opportunity to invite a Project to make
a formal Proposal.  This invitation occurs when, in public forum, a
voting TOC member agrees to act as Project Sponsor and the Project
agrees to proceed.

[ CNCF website should link to example 5-slide deck eg. Prometheus intro ]

3. Proposal.  Project and Sponsor create a written proposal using the
published proposal template.  On completion, this document must be
posted to the CNCF proposals list and TOC list.

At this stage, the TOC may provide feedback and ask questions.  The
TOC may request a formal presentation of the Proposal during one of
its regular meetings.  This stage is completed when, during a TOC
meeting, the TOC states that a vote will take place.

[ CNCF website should link to template plus example proposal doc eg.
Prometheus ]

4. Vote.  The TOC votes on the Project Proposal on the public TOC
mailing list.  A successful vote requires 6 TOC members, out of a
possible 9.  Projects that are successful will then proceed to
Incubation.

[ CNCF website should link to the charter statements that explain
voting.  Also, CNCF website should describe Incubation. ]

Final note: stages 2 and 3 may not happen in the same meeting.
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc





Re: proposed change to our proposals process

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

Alexis,
per the charter [1], in section 9, it says:
All such contributions should meet a set criteria created by the TOC and ratified by the Governing Board.
I would suggest that the TOC work on getting this ratification done fairly soon so that we don't delay in getting new projects on-boarded and so that we have a clear, agreed upon and consistent set of criteria by which new projects will be evaluated.


[1] https://cncf.io/about/charter

thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---07/29/2016 01:29:33 AM---Hi all, As we talk to more projects, a consistent proposals process is

From: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Date: 07/29/2016 01:29 AM
Subject: [cncf-toc] proposed change to our proposals process
Sent by: cncf-toc-bounces@...





Hi all,

As we talk to more projects, a consistent proposals process is
emerging.  I'd like to describe how this is working now, with a view
to the TOC blessing the model.  After this, let's ask Dan's team to
publish a summary of the process on the CNCF website, plus collateral
changes [ shown in brackets below ].

alexis



Stages are:

1. Discovery.  Project contacts CNCF or is approached by TOC / ED
staff.  Informal conversation about mission of CNCF and how CNCF can
help Project.

At this stage, the Project should decide if it potentially wishes to
be in the CNCF.  The representatives of the CNCF should decide if they
are comfortable recommending a move to stage 2.

[ CNCF website should state benefits of CNCF to Projects ]

2. Introduction.  Project makes a 20 minute presentation to the TOC
during a scheduled TOC meeting.

In the first 10 minutes: present a slide deck should explain why the
project exists, who is using it, and where it is going.  Not more than
5 slides.  In the second 10 minutes: Q&A.

At this stage, the TOC has the opportunity to invite a Project to make
a formal Proposal.  This invitation occurs when, in public forum, a
voting TOC member agrees to act as Project Sponsor and the Project
agrees to proceed.

[ CNCF website should link to example 5-slide deck eg. Prometheus intro ]

3. Proposal.  Project and Sponsor create a written proposal using the
published proposal template.  On completion, this document must be
posted to the CNCF proposals list and TOC list.

At this stage, the TOC may provide feedback and ask questions.  The
TOC may request a formal presentation of the Proposal during one of
its regular meetings.  This stage is completed when, during a TOC
meeting, the TOC states that a vote will take place.

[ CNCF website should link to template plus example proposal doc eg.
Prometheus ]

4. Vote.  The TOC votes on the Project Proposal on the public TOC
mailing list.  A successful vote requires 6 TOC members, out of a
possible 9.  Projects that are successful will then proceed to
Incubation.

[ CNCF website should link to the charter statements that explain
voting.  Also, CNCF website should describe Incubation. ]

Final note: stages 2 and 3 may not happen in the same meeting.
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




proposed change to our proposals process

alexis richardson
 

Hi all,

As we talk to more projects, a consistent proposals process is
emerging. I'd like to describe how this is working now, with a view
to the TOC blessing the model. After this, let's ask Dan's team to
publish a summary of the process on the CNCF website, plus collateral
changes [ shown in brackets below ].

alexis



Stages are:

1. Discovery. Project contacts CNCF or is approached by TOC / ED
staff. Informal conversation about mission of CNCF and how CNCF can
help Project.

At this stage, the Project should decide if it potentially wishes to
be in the CNCF. The representatives of the CNCF should decide if they
are comfortable recommending a move to stage 2.

[ CNCF website should state benefits of CNCF to Projects ]

2. Introduction. Project makes a 20 minute presentation to the TOC
during a scheduled TOC meeting.

In the first 10 minutes: present a slide deck should explain why the
project exists, who is using it, and where it is going. Not more than
5 slides. In the second 10 minutes: Q&A.

At this stage, the TOC has the opportunity to invite a Project to make
a formal Proposal. This invitation occurs when, in public forum, a
voting TOC member agrees to act as Project Sponsor and the Project
agrees to proceed.

[ CNCF website should link to example 5-slide deck eg. Prometheus intro ]

3. Proposal. Project and Sponsor create a written proposal using the
published proposal template. On completion, this document must be
posted to the CNCF proposals list and TOC list.

At this stage, the TOC may provide feedback and ask questions. The
TOC may request a formal presentation of the Proposal during one of
its regular meetings. This stage is completed when, during a TOC
meeting, the TOC states that a vote will take place.

[ CNCF website should link to template plus example proposal doc eg.
Prometheus ]

4. Vote. The TOC votes on the Project Proposal on the public TOC
mailing list. A successful vote requires 6 TOC members, out of a
possible 9. Projects that are successful will then proceed to
Incubation.

[ CNCF website should link to the charter statements that explain
voting. Also, CNCF website should describe Incubation. ]

Final note: stages 2 and 3 may not happen in the same meeting.


Re: minio

NASSAUR, DOUGLAS C <dn283x@...>
 

It's too bad we are not getting one in a piece like this.. Perfect example of the value proposition I've proposed we pursue for CNCF in the CNCF Vision Document. Unfortunate that nobody seems to want to discuss it, make some decisions and get actionable.

-----Original Message-----
From: cncf-toc-bounces@lists.cncf.io [mailto:cncf-toc-bounces@lists.cncf.io] On Behalf Of Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 4:44 PM
To: cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io
Subject: [cncf-toc] minio

interesting to see minio get a shout here -

https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/07/how-to-escape-lock-in-with-a-multi-cloud-stack.html

looking forward to hearing who is actually using it!
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


minio

alexis richardson
 

interesting to see minio get a shout here -

https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/07/how-to-escape-lock-in-with-a-multi-cloud-stack.html

looking forward to hearing who is actually using it!


Reminder: CloudNativeCon/KubeCon CFP closes August 5th!

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Please submit your proposals!


CFP Open: May 9, 2016
CFP Close: August 5, 2016
CFP Notifications: August 26, 2016
Schedule Announced: September 2, 2016
Slide Due Date: November 1, 2016
Event Dates: November 8-9, 2016

Thanks!

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


Re: audience for "reference architecture" content

Mark Balch <mark@...>
 

No worries…let me try to confirm my understanding.  You’re saying there is a control plane for cloud native infrastructure (includes the fabric you reference below) and a control plane for deploying apps on that infra?  And that the infrastructure must support multi-cloud federation.

 

I was thinking of these as being one overall control plane, though there could be some pieces unused in specific scenarios.  Example:

·        Deploy app consisting of N containers, with associated segmentation and storage policy in a specific container cluster

·        Deploy the same app across hybrid container cluster subject to security/placement/cost policy (to name a few), assuming the app is designed in such a way as to be deployable across federated clusters

 

In the first scenario, policies related to cluster federation would be ignored.  Certain control plane functions related to cluster federation may not be required in the second scenario.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks,

Mark

 

 

From: NASSAUR, DOUGLAS C [mailto:dn283x@...]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 12:08 PM
To: mark@...
Cc: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>; Alan Conley <aconley@...>; cncf-toc@...; Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] audience for "reference architecture" content

 

Thanks Mark, got what you meant so apologies for not being clear. My primary point is that their are two separate and distinct paths which each exhibit the model-view-control reference pattern - one specific to the cloud native app fabric itself and the other for the 1-n app logic workloads under its management. Imo one can be left flexible while the other must be clearly defined in a manner which supports multi cloud federation above the infrastructure substrate. 

Regards, Doug


On Jul 22, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Mark Balch <mark@...> wrote:

By data plane, I meant the application data flow itself: code, runtime, OS, app data storage, app data connectivity (i.e., networking).  Models and policy are important aspects that can blur lines between data/control plane, but typically I see them more associated with the control plane because they usually direct how deployments occur in the data plane and how the data plane behaves (e.g., your segmentation scenario).  There may be situations where model/policy is more closely aligned to the data plane – I’m not seeking a rigid definition.

 

With respect to how networks are/not segmented between management and data, this is something I would expect the control plane policy model to allow for customer preference and not force either way. 

 

I agree with setting up a problem statement to define the ref arch context.  However, to the extent that a problem statement becomes a dictionary definition of what we’re trying to solve, it can become a protracted charter-defining type of process.  We might do both in parallel to not gate progress on the ref arch.  Disconnects can be resolve as the discussion unfolds.

 

Mark

 

 

From: NASSAUR, DOUGLAS C [mailto:dn283x@...]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 10:44 AM
To: 'mark@...' <mark@...>; Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>; Alan Conley <aconley@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: RE: [cncf-toc] audience for "reference architecture" content

 

Would you consider “model” and control planes? It would be inclusive of “data” but also accommodates a larger context. Also, can we endeavor to capture the nano-segmentation aspects of container networking when differentiating the two planes?

 

Here’s the gap I’m hoping we address – Old days (few years ago) we had completely separate networks for both, current time we vlan/segment etc. Forward looking folks believe that by mapping vnic to vlan we can maintain the separation when we know that won’t work across WAN/routed, multi-cloud and IoT oriented networks.

 

Perhaps we can set up the problem statement via the ref architecture so the masses can see and digest it and then show how nano segmentation/CNI/CNM addresses it?

 

From: Mark Balch [mailto:mark@...]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 1:36 PM
To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>; NASSAUR, DOUGLAS C <dn283x@...>; Alan Conley <aconley@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: RE: [cncf-toc] audience for "reference architecture" content

 

Using the airport analogy, airplanes and airports are an orthogonal to air traffic control, baggage routing, etc.  Back to our world, it's the difference between data and control planes. 

 

I'd like to suggest that our reference model make clear the management/control plane in addition to the data plane as depicted in the landscape doc.  Craig's original diagram blended the two together, which is useful because there is much work to be done in both areas.  Column 'C' has some thoughts in this area, though unfinished.

 

CNCF can at least define the boundaries and functions users should be aware of in how the application/infrastructure stack is deployed, configured, and managed.  Further, we can facilitate interoperability in the control plane.

 

If there are no violent disagreements, I'll put up a strawman.

 

Mark

 

 

 

From: cncf-toc-bounces@... [mailto:cncf-toc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 10:31 AM
To: NASSAUR, DOUGLAS C <dn283x@...>; Alan Conley <aconley@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] audience for "reference architecture" content

 

i actually like how you think about this Doug.  it is a great flag on the hill.  but can it work?  complete freedom for components combined with app dev productivity. 

 

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016, 18:28 NASSAUR, DOUGLAS C, <dn283x@...> wrote:

Any thoughts folks?

-----Original Message-----
From: cncf-toc-bounces@... [mailto:cncf-toc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of NASSAUR, DOUGLAS C via cncf-toc
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 12:22 PM
To: 'Alexis Richardson' <alexis@...>; Alan Conley <aconley@...>
Cc: 'cncf-toc@...' <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] audience for "reference architecture" content

The approach I've been taking on this has been from a slightly different perspective. Most definitions have started with the infrastructure and I'm starting from the application and working backwards.

Using a combination of the power company utility model and the airport "separation of concerns" model of Air traffic control and ground control, I've been defining the roles of a) An independent application or specialty platform, b) a cloud native application fabric and c) an infrastructure substrate.

The premise is that applications decompose into segments, each of which distill into a finite set of application workload patterns. These patterns align to composition, distribution and execution models which provide the characteristics and behaviors each specific pattern requires. Simply put, the jobs decompose as follows:

1)  The application developer composes and describes the application
2) The app fabric recognizes the pattern, determines the best deployment pattern, transforms the workload and shops it for resources across a syndicate of infrastructure substrate providers (and technologies).
3) The infrastructure substrate executes the workload reliably at a local provider level

The fundamental shift notes that a cloud native app fabric scales business and technical functions implemented via software. As such, it can recognize demand using higher order indicators specific to functionality as opposed to traditional CPU, memory etc. As such, we align resource needs and utilization to meaningful business transactions and "right-size" supply with demand at the functional level.

If we take the technology, vendor and project names out of the picture and focus on capabilities we can describe this ecosystem in terms of enablers. Once we define these enablers and their roles in each of the three layers above we see pretty clearly that concepts like policy, orchestration etc. actually occur in several places and can draw the following parallels...

1) A baggage handler in New York has no need to know what a baggage handler in Atlanta is doing. Each does need to coordinate with their respective (and local) air traffic controller.
2) Air traffic control in Atlanta does need to be aware of what the ATC in New York is doing.
3) The blender Alexis uses to make us coctails does not care if the power it uses came from Georgia Power, Alabama Power or Florida power, nor does it care if it was generated using Coal, Hydro, Nuclear etc. power...
4) Georgia power does not sit in design meetings with the Xbox engineering team.
5) The system to generate power, handle luggage, load meals on planes etc. is free to innovate and be adopted independently from the ability to fly people around reliably.

My hopes for the CNCF reference model is that we show this reference model inclusive of the OCF and DAB and independent of the technologies, projects and products which can be used to enable the behaviors. I also hope that ongoing we maintain the list of these players and where they play when they implement according to the reference architecture.

Thoughts? Have I completely lost my mind?



-----Original Message-----
From: cncf-toc-bounces@... [mailto:cncf-toc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 11:50 AM
To: Alan Conley <aconley@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] audience for "reference architecture" content

Alan,

Thank-you.

"anyone assembling a container management solution (orchestrator,
control plane etc.) and anyone attempting to build a functional
component that would fit within that architecture.  Pretty much every
company I've spoken with is currently rolling their own from a select
set of open source projects and developing their own glue to fill gaps
and stitch the pieces together"

Does this mean:
- large enterprises
- vendors
- other..?

a



On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Alan Conley <aconley@...> wrote:
> I think this goes back to what is the charter of the CNCF.
>
>
> Taking a few short cuts in this narrative and avoiding some of the politics.
> Containers became mainstream when docker "standardized" their use.  The
> industry saw this rapid adoption and suggested a forum should "govern" these
> standards which resulted in the OCP->OCI.  From the OCI charter,
> "...industry participants may easily contribute to building a
> vendor-neutral, portable and open specification and runtime...".  So we have
> both a spec and working code.
>
>
> What was missing, was the equivalent for container management (orchestrator,
> control plane, monitoring) solutions.  I believe this was the genesis of the
> CNCF, originated by Craig and why k8s was the initial project.  The original
> reference architecture provided a simple view of these functional
> components.  BTW, most would see the similarities between this and OpenStack
> for VMs.  I personally have no interest in seeing the CNCF focused on one
> implementation.
>
>
> Assuming I'm not completely off the path, the target audience for the ref
> arch is anyone assembling a container management solution (orchestrator,
> control plane etc.) and anyone attempting to build a functional component
> that would fit within that architecture.  Pretty much every company I've
> spoken with is currently rolling their own from a select set of open source
> projects and developing their own glue to fill gaps and stitch the pieces
> together.  (My company is doing that for our own SaaS solutions.)  There are
> a few of us interested in extending what we see as one of the needed
> functional components.  However, we are unclear on how others see that
> interfacing with other components and in some cases see overlapping
> capabilities.  We can certainly just put it out there and see if there is
> adoption, but then that begs the question as to what value does the CNCF
> actually provide other than marketing.
>
>
> I'll stop before this becomes  too much of a ramble, for comments.
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 4:54 AM
> To: cncf-toc@...
> Subject: audience for "reference architecture" content
>
> Hi all,
>
> Yesterday we had our 2nd discussion about the 'marketecture' stack that Ken
> and I put out.  One piece of feedback, from Doug Davis by email, and then eg
> from Alan Conley on the call, was that much more detail could help.
>
> I believe this is a "target audience" issue.  We may need different material
> for different audiences even if those audiences are all "technical".  For
> example - I argued that for developer end users, less detail is good.
>
> It would be very helpful to hear from the people advocating for more detail,
> regarding their target audience.
>
> alexis
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

6221 - 6240 of 6542