Date   

Re: netdata shitshow

Jennifer Lankford <jennifer@...>
 

My first instinct would be to contact them directly to get them to course correct immediately, and make a public statement warning against this practice to the community. They also owe the community an apology. Bad look.

I TRY to not assume ill intent but it’s clearly a very smarmy move on their part. Maaaybe it’s a misguided and ignorant mistake by an overzealous junior marketer. Hopefully not a founder. But it also needs to serve as an example and cautionary tale of what not to do. 


On Jun 6, 2019, at 3:38 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:

Would it be appropriate to respond in a more public manner?
Maybe just an article that says "check out our updated landscape" maybe to mention the archival of projects etc.. as well.

Just thinking out loud.

Thanks for catching  this Alexis.
Is there some way we can capture this in a more official/automated manner in the future?



On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:31 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Thank you Dan 

I must say I'm a bit sceptical about stars. I wish it were more like stack overflow or discuss, so that you have to earn the right to give them out. 
On 6 Jun 2019, 22:46 +0100, Dan Kohn <dan@...>, wrote:
I created this PR: https://github.com/netdata/netdata/pull/6234
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com


On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:58 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:
While I’m not a lawyer, I wonder if this violates the trademark rules. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-usage/ states:

Do not use a logo of The Linux Foundation on posters, brochures, signs, websites, or other marketing materials to promote your events, products or services without written permission from The Linux Foundation.

Just thinking out loud.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Jun 6, 2019, at 4:51 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

The site doesn't say "applied for CNCF and was rejected".  This is an
example of "lying by omission".  It is not OK.

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 9:49 PM Shannon Williams <shannon@...> wrote:

+1 – feels like an inappropriate use of the logo.  @Dan Kohn – anything we can do to stop that?





From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of David McKay via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 1:40 PM
To: Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow



While not "technically" incorrect, I understand what Alexis is saying; it seems like unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified.



IIRC, they did try to become a CNCF project and had no sponsors.



A quick Google shows that they're using this "endorsement" actively in their marketing campaigns:



https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17304734







On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 13:30 Josh M, <josh.michielsen@...> wrote:

It's technically not wrong I guess....



On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 9:28 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:

"Netdata is in the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) landscape
and it is the 3rd most starred open-source project. Check the CNCF TOC
Netdata presentation."

https://github.com/netdata/netdata/blob/master/README.md






The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.








--
Erin A. Boyd
Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...   


Re: netdata shitshow

Erin Boyd
 

Would it be appropriate to respond in a more public manner?
Maybe just an article that says "check out our updated landscape" maybe to mention the archival of projects etc.. as well.

Just thinking out loud.

Thanks for catching  this Alexis.
Is there some way we can capture this in a more official/automated manner in the future?



On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:31 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Thank you Dan 

I must say I'm a bit sceptical about stars. I wish it were more like stack overflow or discuss, so that you have to earn the right to give them out. 
On 6 Jun 2019, 22:46 +0100, Dan Kohn <dan@...>, wrote:
I created this PR: https://github.com/netdata/netdata/pull/6234
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com


On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:58 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:
While I’m not a lawyer, I wonder if this violates the trademark rules. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-usage/ states:

Do not use a logo of The Linux Foundation on posters, brochures, signs, websites, or other marketing materials to promote your events, products or services without written permission from The Linux Foundation.

Just thinking out loud.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Jun 6, 2019, at 4:51 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

The site doesn't say "applied for CNCF and was rejected".  This is an
example of "lying by omission".  It is not OK.

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 9:49 PM Shannon Williams <shannon@...> wrote:

+1 – feels like an inappropriate use of the logo.  @Dan Kohn – anything we can do to stop that?





From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of David McKay via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 1:40 PM
To: Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow



While not "technically" incorrect, I understand what Alexis is saying; it seems like unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified.



IIRC, they did try to become a CNCF project and had no sponsors.



A quick Google shows that they're using this "endorsement" actively in their marketing campaigns:



https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17304734







On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 13:30 Josh M, <josh.michielsen@...> wrote:

It's technically not wrong I guess....



On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 9:28 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:

"Netdata is in the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) landscape
and it is the 3rd most starred open-source project. Check the CNCF TOC
Netdata presentation."

https://github.com/netdata/netdata/blob/master/README.md






The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.






--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...   


Re: netdata shitshow

Liz Rice
 

Thank you Dan 

I must say I'm a bit sceptical about stars. I wish it were more like stack overflow or discuss, so that you have to earn the right to give them out. 

On 6 Jun 2019, 22:46 +0100, Dan Kohn <dan@...>, wrote:
I created this PR: https://github.com/netdata/netdata/pull/6234
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com


On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:58 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:
While I’m not a lawyer, I wonder if this violates the trademark rules. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-usage/ states:

Do not use a logo of The Linux Foundation on posters, brochures, signs, websites, or other marketing materials to promote your events, products or services without written permission from The Linux Foundation.

Just thinking out loud.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Jun 6, 2019, at 4:51 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

The site doesn't say "applied for CNCF and was rejected".  This is an
example of "lying by omission".  It is not OK.

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 9:49 PM Shannon Williams <shannon@...> wrote:

+1 – feels like an inappropriate use of the logo.  @Dan Kohn – anything we can do to stop that?





From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of David McKay via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 1:40 PM
To: Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow



While not "technically" incorrect, I understand what Alexis is saying; it seems like unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified.



IIRC, they did try to become a CNCF project and had no sponsors.



A quick Google shows that they're using this "endorsement" actively in their marketing campaigns:



https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17304734







On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 13:30 Josh M, <josh.michielsen@...> wrote:

It's technically not wrong I guess....



On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 9:28 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:

"Netdata is in the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) landscape
and it is the 3rd most starred open-source project. Check the CNCF TOC
Netdata presentation."

https://github.com/netdata/netdata/blob/master/README.md






The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.





Re: netdata shitshow

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

I created this PR: https://github.com/netdata/netdata/pull/6234
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com


On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:58 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:
While I’m not a lawyer, I wonder if this violates the trademark rules. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-usage/ states:

Do not use a logo of The Linux Foundation on posters, brochures, signs, websites, or other marketing materials to promote your events, products or services without written permission from The Linux Foundation.

Just thinking out loud.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Jun 6, 2019, at 4:51 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

The site doesn't say "applied for CNCF and was rejected".  This is an
example of "lying by omission".  It is not OK.

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 9:49 PM Shannon Williams <shannon@...> wrote:

+1 – feels like an inappropriate use of the logo.  @Dan Kohn – anything we can do to stop that?





From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of David McKay via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 1:40 PM
To: Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow



While not "technically" incorrect, I understand what Alexis is saying; it seems like unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified.



IIRC, they did try to become a CNCF project and had no sponsors.



A quick Google shows that they're using this "endorsement" actively in their marketing campaigns:



https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17304734







On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 13:30 Josh M, <josh.michielsen@...> wrote:

It's technically not wrong I guess....



On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 9:28 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:

"Netdata is in the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) landscape
and it is the 3rd most starred open-source project. Check the CNCF TOC
Netdata presentation."

https://github.com/netdata/netdata/blob/master/README.md






The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.





Re: netdata shitshow

Matt Farina
 

While I’m not a lawyer, I wonder if this violates the trademark rules. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-usage/ states:

Do not use a logo of The Linux Foundation on posters, brochures, signs, websites, or other marketing materials to promote your events, products or services without written permission from The Linux Foundation.

Just thinking out loud.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Jun 6, 2019, at 4:51 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

The site doesn't say "applied for CNCF and was rejected".  This is an
example of "lying by omission".  It is not OK.

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 9:49 PM Shannon Williams <shannon@...> wrote:

+1 – feels like an inappropriate use of the logo.  @Dan Kohn – anything we can do to stop that?





From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of David McKay via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 1:40 PM
To: Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow



While not "technically" incorrect, I understand what Alexis is saying; it seems like unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified.



IIRC, they did try to become a CNCF project and had no sponsors.



A quick Google shows that they're using this "endorsement" actively in their marketing campaigns:



https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17304734







On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 13:30 Josh M, <josh.michielsen@...> wrote:

It's technically not wrong I guess....



On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 9:28 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:

"Netdata is in the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) landscape
and it is the 3rd most starred open-source project. Check the CNCF TOC
Netdata presentation."

https://github.com/netdata/netdata/blob/master/README.md






The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.





Re: netdata shitshow

alexis richardson
 

The site doesn't say "applied for CNCF and was rejected". This is an
example of "lying by omission". It is not OK.

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 9:49 PM Shannon Williams <shannon@rancher.com> wrote:

+1 – feels like an inappropriate use of the logo. @Dan Kohn – anything we can do to stop that?





From: cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io> On Behalf Of David McKay via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 1:40 PM
To: Josh M <josh.michielsen@condenastint.com>
Cc: cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow



While not "technically" incorrect, I understand what Alexis is saying; it seems like unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified.



IIRC, they did try to become a CNCF project and had no sponsors.



A quick Google shows that they're using this "endorsement" actively in their marketing campaigns:



https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17304734







On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 13:30 Josh M, <josh.michielsen@condenastint.com> wrote:

It's technically not wrong I guess....



On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 9:28 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@weave.works> wrote:

"Netdata is in the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) landscape
and it is the 3rd most starred open-source project. Check the CNCF TOC
Netdata presentation."

https://github.com/netdata/netdata/blob/master/README.md






The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.


Re: netdata shitshow

Shannon Williams
 

+1 – feels like an inappropriate use of the logo.  @Dan Kohn – anything we can do to stop that?

 

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of David McKay via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 1:40 PM
To: Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

While not "technically" incorrect, I understand what Alexis is saying; it seems like unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified.

 

IIRC, they did try to become a CNCF project and had no sponsors.

 

A quick Google shows that they're using this "endorsement" actively in their marketing campaigns:

 

 

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 13:30 Josh M, <josh.michielsen@...> wrote:

It's technically not wrong I guess....

 

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 9:28 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:

"Netdata is in the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) landscape
and it is the 3rd most starred open-source project. Check the CNCF TOC
Netdata presentation."

https://github.com/netdata/netdata/blob/master/README.md


 

 

The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.


Re: netdata shitshow

 

While not "technically" incorrect, I understand what Alexis is saying; it seems like unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified.

IIRC, they did try to become a CNCF project and had no sponsors.

A quick Google shows that they're using this "endorsement" actively in their marketing campaigns:


On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 13:30 Josh M, <josh.michielsen@...> wrote:
It's technically not wrong I guess....

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 9:28 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:
"Netdata is in the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) landscape
and it is the 3rd most starred open-source project. Check the CNCF TOC
Netdata presentation."

https://github.com/netdata/netdata/blob/master/README.md





The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.


Re: netdata shitshow

Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>
 

It's technically not wrong I guess....

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 9:28 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:
"Netdata is in the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) landscape
and it is the 3rd most starred open-source project. Check the CNCF TOC
Netdata presentation."

https://github.com/netdata/netdata/blob/master/README.md





The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.


netdata shitshow

alexis richardson
 

"Netdata is in the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) landscape
and it is the 3rd most starred open-source project. Check the CNCF TOC
Netdata presentation."

https://github.com/netdata/netdata/blob/master/README.md


Re: CNCF SIG "App Delivery"

chrisdidato@gmail.com
 

+1.

Sent from the virtual desk of Chris Didato. (Please excuse the brevity and any typos).

On Jun 4, 2019, at 9:07 AM, Brewer, Jeff via Lists.Cncf.Io <jeff_brewer=intuit.com@lists.cncf.io> wrote:

Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?

Jeff

On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io on behalf of alexis@weave.works> wrote:

This email is from an external sender.


Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.

Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.

Interested? Email us offline.

Alexis+Michelle








Re: CNCF SIG "App Delivery"

Liz Rice
 

I don't think we need to tightly couple the submission of projects and the creation of a SIG to deal with them :-)

I get the intention to have SIGs to cover all known projects, but in the absence of a SIG into whose remit a project falls, we still have a fallback - the TOC! We shouldn't feel bad for not having a SIG for a new area. That's not failure, that could simply be innovation happening before our very eyes. 

So, separating out two things
  • Personally I didn't see Amino.Run at KubeCon yet but from a quick look the readme sounds cool. I'll look for it on YouTube though, and look forward to a project submission :-)
  • If there's a community of folks interested in putting together a SIG for this next level of abstraction (SIG-Framework?) that would be great IMO. We could certainly have it on the list of proposed SIGs and get some feedback on the idea. 
  • We should make sure that the charter doesn't overlap with / have giant gaps from SIG-App Delivery, so I'd probably want to see their charter taking shape first (given that there are already projects in that scope) 
Does that give you enough leeway to be proactive, Quinton? Which I love by the way :-) 

Meanwhile let's get this thread back to its original purpose - who's interested in getting involved with SIG-App Delivery? 

Liz

On 4 Jun 2019, 20:17 +0100, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, wrote:
Thanks Liz

I like your approach.  So to make things more concrete and immediate 😊

1) I have a project, Amino OS (http://github.com/Amino-OS/Amino.Run), that we presented at Kubecon in Barcelona,.
2) I believe it to be in scope of the CNCF. I would welcome discussions to the contrary, if anyone disagrees.
3)  Ergo, I think it should  fall within the scope of some CNCF SIG
4)  I would like to donate Amino-OS to the CNCF.
5) Would you like me to kickstart a CNCF SIG to cover these sorts of projects (given that Alexis would like to keep them out of scope of the CNCF "App Dev, Ops and Testing" SIG as captured in the current CNCF docs (see below).  Or perhaps the "App Delivery" SIG under consideration here is actually something different than the one described in the doc.

App Dev, Ops & Testing PaaS, Serverless, Operators, CI/CD, Conformance, Chaos Eng, Scalability and Reliability measurement etc.



From: Liz Rice <liz@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:53 AM
To: Alexis Richardson; Quinton Hoole
Cc: Doug Davis; cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
 
I think it's in scope of some theoretical future SIG, when we have projects / active discussions in that area. 

That future SIG could even be this SIG-App Delivery in some future incarnation that wishes to take it on, IMO

We could carve it out as a proposed SIG that folks can pick up and run with, should they wish, if that would make people feel more comfortable that we view it as generally in the purview of the CNCF? 
On 4 Jun 2019, 20:51 +0200, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, wrote:
Liz, to be clear, is your opinion that PaaS, Frameworks, IDE's etc are:

a) out of scope of the CNCF
b) in scope of some other CNCF SIG (and if so, which?)
c) something else?

Q


From: Liz Rice <liz@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:30 AM
To: Quinton Hoole; alexis richardson
Cc: Doug Davis; cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
 
I am not sure we do ourselves any favours by separating Serverless into its own vertical. 

Would you expect serverless / function security to fall into the remit of SIG-security? I would. Given that, what if this SIG were to encompass app definition in both Serverless / functions and container-based approaches? 

I agree with Alexis that moving up the stack to frameworks / IDEs etc is a huge area that doesn't need to be in scope. 

Liz
On 4 Jun 2019, 20:27 +0200, alexis richardson <alexis@...>, wrote:
i see app frameworks and platforms as "next tier in the stack" that should draw on foundations from the CNCF SIGs, including app delivery, security, storage, ...

Plus, there will be 1000s of them.

So please can they have their own Area.



On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:55 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
My personal opinion is that everything that we consider to be in scope of the CNCF needs to be in scope for at least one CNCF SIG.  Ergo anything that is declared out of scope for this CNCF Apps SIG either needs to be in scope of another SIG, or our of scope of the CNCF in general.

My other personal opinion that is of relevance here is that we should keep the number of CNCF SIGs as small as possible today (based on the "SIG Sprawl" experience in Kubernetes, which resulted in large numbers of ineffective SIGs - we saw much more of that failure case than "A highly effective SIG whose scope is too broad").

CNCF SIGs should by all means contain more specifically focussed subgroups (whether it be a working group, or a sub-project, or whatever), but I think each subgroup should be very clearly under the auspices of a CNCF SIG.

So, to get back to the original question regarding scope of this SIG, I would suggest that:

  1. Serverless applications should be considered a subclass of applications, and fall within this CNCF Apps SIG.
  2. Serverless infrastructure (e.g. how to build FaaS systems on top of Kubernetes, etc) should fall under the "CNCF Core and Applied Architectures" SIG.
  3. PaaS and the other areas I mentioned (Cloud IDE's, CI/CD, Experiment frameworks etc) should fall under this CNCF Apps SIG, unless (1) we can convince another CNCF SIG to consider them in scope (seems highly dubious), or (2) the TOC deems them to be out of scope of the CNCF as a whole (also seems highly dubious).
My 2c

Q



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:08 AM
To: alexis richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
 

Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.

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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:

From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...





Yep, they are.


On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
>
>     This email is from an external sender.
>
>
>     Jeff
>
>     I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
>     and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
>     supporting dev tools.
>
>     IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
>
>     Does this make sense?
>
>     a
>
>     On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>     >
>     > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
>     >
>     > Jeff
>     >
>     > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
>     >
>     >     This email is from an external sender.
>     >
>     >
>     >     Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
>     >
>     >     Our next step: draft a charter.  We'd love a few keen would-be
>     >     SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please!   Also, we shall
>     >     figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
>     >
>     >     Interested?  Email us offline.
>     >
>     >     Alexis+Michelle
>     >
>     >    
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>








Re: CNCF SIG "App Delivery"

Karl Wehden
 

I am also interested in the App Delivery / App Scope, and in participation.  We are working through this from a few different viewpoints and would be interested in evaluating and testing the boundaries of the application versus the deployment as a part of a delivery cycle.

Please add my name as well. 

/Karl



On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 4:23 PM Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

> I'd like app delivery to be narrow if possible, but that feels hard already!

From my POV I'm not disagreeing, I just don't have a good sense of what this "narrow scope" includes, so it's hard to know if I'm interested or not.

But, since you were asking for interested folks... please add my name to the list. I can always sneak away later if the scope isn't of interest :-)


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" ---06/04/2019 03:06:55 PM---Hi folks Please can we stop arguing about this. Let the Sig folk draft a charter

From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: Doug Davis <dug@...>, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>, "Brewer, Jeff" <jeff_brewer@...>, Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 03:06 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...





Hi folks

Please can we stop arguing about this.  Let the Sig folk draft a charter for comment and then let's argue, bikeshed, whatever.

All I'm saying is that projects like cloudfoundry and Openshift and openfaas are in their own bucket that aggregates across many things and is huge.

I'd like app delivery to be narrow if possible, but that feels hard already!

A



On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, 20:02 Quinton Hoole, <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
    Doug, the only doc I'm aware of is the proposed SIGs:

    https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/sigs/proposed.md

    But I think that description is not actually universally agreed upon yet, hence this discussion.

    App Dev, Ops & TestingPaaS, Serverless, Operators, CI/CD, Conformance, Chaos Eng, Scalability and Reliability measurement etc.

    At the risk of over-repeating myself, I think it's important that for any given technology-related question that a user comes to us with, we should only essentially have two answers:

    Either:

    1) That's not in scope of the CNCF.  Please find an answer elsewhere.

    or 

    2) Please speak to CNCF SIG X - they cover that area.

    I do not think we should ever have to answer:

    X) Yes, the CNCF considers that in scope, but we don't actually have a place for you to go and discuss that.

    Q


    From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
    Sent:
    Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:36 AM
    To:
    Alexis Richardson
    Cc:
    cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
    Subject:
    Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
     

    Is there a doc that gives a more detailed explanation of what "App Delivery" is meant to cover?
    I honestly do not know what it means for both PaaS and Serverless to be out of scope when I believe all of them are (probably) based on containers and therefore will leverage container images as part of "App Delivery".


    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 ---06/04/2019 02:22:19 PM---Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.

    From:
    Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
    To:
    Doug Davis <dug@...>
    Cc:
    "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>, Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>
    Date:
    06/04/2019 02:22 PM
    Subject:
    [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"





    Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of
    scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.

    On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:08 PM Doug Davis <
    dug@...> wrote:
    >
    > Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.
    >
    > 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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <
    Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
    >
    > From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
    > To: "Brewer, Jeff" <
    Jeff_Brewer@...>
    > Cc: Michelle Noorali <
    Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
    > Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
    > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
    > Sent by:
    cncf-toc@...
    >
    > ________________________________
    >
    >
    >
    > Yep, they are.
    >
    >
    > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <
    Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
    > >
    > > As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
    > >
    > > Jeff
    > >
    > > On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
    > >
    > >     This email is from an external sender.
    > >
    > >
    > >     Jeff
    > >
    > >     I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
    > >     and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
    > >     supporting dev tools.
    > >
    > >     IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
    > >
    > >     Does this make sense?
    > >
    > >     a
    > >
    > >     On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <
    Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
    > >     >
    > >     > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
    > >     >
    > >     > Jeff
    > >     >
    > >     > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "
    cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
    > >     >
    > >     >     This email is from an external sender.
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >     >     Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
    > >     >
    > >     >     Our next step: draft a charter.  We'd love a few keen would-be
    > >     >     SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please!   Also, we shall
    > >     >     figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
    > >     >
    > >     >     Interested?  Email us offline.
    > >     >
    > >     >     Alexis+Michelle
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >








--

Karl Wehden
VP of Product Strategy / Marketing
karl.wehden@...
M: +1 206.669.1494



Re: CNCF SIG "App Delivery"

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

> I'd like app delivery to be narrow if possible, but that feels hard already!

From my POV I'm not disagreeing, I just don't have a good sense of what this "narrow scope" includes, so it's hard to know if I'm interested or not.

But, since you were asking for interested folks... please add my name to the list. I can always sneak away later if the scope isn't of interest :-)


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" ---06/04/2019 03:06:55 PM---Hi folks Please can we stop arguing about this. Let the Sig folk draft a charter

From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: Doug Davis <dug@...>, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>, "Brewer, Jeff" <jeff_brewer@...>, Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 03:06 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...





Hi folks

Please can we stop arguing about this.  Let the Sig folk draft a charter for comment and then let's argue, bikeshed, whatever.

All I'm saying is that projects like cloudfoundry and Openshift and openfaas are in their own bucket that aggregates across many things and is huge.

I'd like app delivery to be narrow if possible, but that feels hard already!

A



On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, 20:02 Quinton Hoole, <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
    Doug, the only doc I'm aware of is the proposed SIGs:

    https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/sigs/proposed.md

    But I think that description is not actually universally agreed upon yet, hence this discussion.

    App Dev, Ops & TestingPaaS, Serverless, Operators, CI/CD, Conformance, Chaos Eng, Scalability and Reliability measurement etc.

    At the risk of over-repeating myself, I think it's important that for any given technology-related question that a user comes to us with, we should only essentially have two answers:

    Either:

    1) That's not in scope of the CNCF.  Please find an answer elsewhere.

    or 

    2) Please speak to CNCF SIG X - they cover that area.

    I do not think we should ever have to answer:

    X) Yes, the CNCF considers that in scope, but we don't actually have a place for you to go and discuss that.

    Q


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent:
Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:36 AM
To:
Alexis Richardson
Cc:
cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject:
Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
 

Is there a doc that gives a more detailed explanation of what "App Delivery" is meant to cover?
I honestly do not know what it means for both PaaS and Serverless to be out of scope when I believe all of them are (probably) based on containers and therefore will leverage container images as part of "App Delivery".


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 ---06/04/2019 02:22:19 PM---Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.

From:
Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
To:
Doug Davis <dug@...>
Cc:
"cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>, Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>
Date:
06/04/2019 02:22 PM
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"





Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of
scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:08 PM Doug Davis <
dug@...> wrote:
>
> Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.
>
> 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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <
Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
> To: "Brewer, Jeff" <
Jeff_Brewer@...>
> Cc: Michelle Noorali <
Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
> Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
> Sent by:
cncf-toc@...
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Yep, they are.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <
Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >
> > As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
> >
> >     This email is from an external sender.
> >
> >
> >     Jeff
> >
> >     I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
> >     and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
> >     supporting dev tools.
> >
> >     IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
> >
> >     Does this make sense?
> >
> >     a
> >
> >     On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <
Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >     >
> >     > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
> >     >
> >     > Jeff
> >     >
> >     > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "
cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     This email is from an external sender.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
> >     >
> >     >     Our next step: draft a charter.  We'd love a few keen would-be
> >     >     SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please!   Also, we shall
> >     >     figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
> >     >
> >     >     Interested?  Email us offline.
> >     >
> >     >     Alexis+Michelle
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>







Re: CNCF SIG "App Delivery"

Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
 

Thanks Liz

I like your approach.  So to make things more concrete and immediate ��

1) I have a project, Amino OS (http://github.com/Amino-OS/Amino.Run), that we presented at Kubecon in Barcelona,.
2) I believe it to be in scope of the CNCF. I would welcome discussions to the contrary, if anyone disagrees.
3)  Ergo, I think it should  fall within the scope of some CNCF SIG
4)  I would like to donate Amino-OS to the CNCF.
5) Would you like me to kickstart a CNCF SIG to cover these sorts of projects (given that Alexis would like to keep them out of scope of the CNCF "App Dev, Ops and Testing" SIG as captured in the current CNCF docs (see below).  Or perhaps the "App Delivery" SIG under consideration here is actually something different than the one described in the doc.

App Dev, Ops & Testing PaaS, Serverless, Operators, CI/CD, Conformance, Chaos Eng, Scalability and Reliability measurement etc.



From: Liz Rice <liz@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:53 AM
To: Alexis Richardson; Quinton Hoole
Cc: Doug Davis; cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
 
I think it's in scope of some theoretical future SIG, when we have projects / active discussions in that area. 

That future SIG could even be this SIG-App Delivery in some future incarnation that wishes to take it on, IMO

We could carve it out as a proposed SIG that folks can pick up and run with, should they wish, if that would make people feel more comfortable that we view it as generally in the purview of the CNCF? 
On 4 Jun 2019, 20:51 +0200, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, wrote:
Liz, to be clear, is your opinion that PaaS, Frameworks, IDE's etc are:

a) out of scope of the CNCF
b) in scope of some other CNCF SIG (and if so, which?)
c) something else?

Q


From: Liz Rice <liz@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:30 AM
To: Quinton Hoole; alexis richardson
Cc: Doug Davis; cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
 
I am not sure we do ourselves any favours by separating Serverless into its own vertical. 

Would you expect serverless / function security to fall into the remit of SIG-security? I would. Given that, what if this SIG were to encompass app definition in both Serverless / functions and container-based approaches? 

I agree with Alexis that moving up the stack to frameworks / IDEs etc is a huge area that doesn't need to be in scope. 

Liz
On 4 Jun 2019, 20:27 +0200, alexis richardson <alexis@...>, wrote:
i see app frameworks and platforms as "next tier in the stack" that should draw on foundations from the CNCF SIGs, including app delivery, security, storage, ...

Plus, there will be 1000s of them.

So please can they have their own Area.



On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:55 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
My personal opinion is that everything that we consider to be in scope of the CNCF needs to be in scope for at least one CNCF SIG.  Ergo anything that is declared out of scope for this CNCF Apps SIG either needs to be in scope of another SIG, or our of scope of the CNCF in general.

My other personal opinion that is of relevance here is that we should keep the number of CNCF SIGs as small as possible today (based on the "SIG Sprawl" experience in Kubernetes, which resulted in large numbers of ineffective SIGs - we saw much more of that failure case than "A highly effective SIG whose scope is too broad").

CNCF SIGs should by all means contain more specifically focussed subgroups (whether it be a working group, or a sub-project, or whatever), but I think each subgroup should be very clearly under the auspices of a CNCF SIG.

So, to get back to the original question regarding scope of this SIG, I would suggest that:

  1. Serverless applications should be considered a subclass of applications, and fall within this CNCF Apps SIG.
  2. Serverless infrastructure (e.g. how to build FaaS systems on top of Kubernetes, etc) should fall under the "CNCF Core and Applied Architectures" SIG.
  3. PaaS and the other areas I mentioned (Cloud IDE's, CI/CD, Experiment frameworks etc) should fall under this CNCF Apps SIG, unless (1) we can convince another CNCF SIG to consider them in scope (seems highly dubious), or (2) the TOC deems them to be out of scope of the CNCF as a whole (also seems highly dubious).
My 2c

Q



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:08 AM
To: alexis richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
 

Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.

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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:

From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...





Yep, they are.


On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
>
>     This email is from an external sender.
>
>
>     Jeff
>
>     I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
>     and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
>     supporting dev tools.
>
>     IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
>
>     Does this make sense?
>
>     a
>
>     On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>     >
>     > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
>     >
>     > Jeff
>     >
>     > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
>     >
>     >     This email is from an external sender.
>     >
>     >
>     >     Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
>     >
>     >     Our next step: draft a charter.  We'd love a few keen would-be
>     >     SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please!   Also, we shall
>     >     figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
>     >
>     >     Interested?  Email us offline.
>     >
>     >     Alexis+Michelle
>     >
>     >    
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>








Re: CNCF SIG "App Delivery"

Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
 

Doug, the only doc I'm aware of is the proposed SIGs:


But I think that description is not actually universally agreed upon yet, hence this discussion.

App Dev, Ops & Testing PaaS, Serverless, Operators, CI/CD, Conformance, Chaos Eng, Scalability and Reliability measurement etc.

At the risk of over-repeating myself, I think it's important that for any given technology-related question that a user comes to us with, we should only essentially have two answers:

Either:

1) That's not in scope of the CNCF.  Please find an answer elsewhere.

or 

2) Please speak to CNCF SIG X - they cover that area.

I do not think we should ever have to answer:

X) Yes, the CNCF considers that in scope, but we don't actually have a place for you to go and discuss that.

Q


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:36 AM
To: Alexis Richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
 

Is there a doc that gives a more detailed explanation of what "App Delivery" is meant to cover?
I honestly do not know what it means for both PaaS and Serverless to be out of scope when I believe all of them are (probably) based on containers and therefore will leverage container images as part of "App Delivery".


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 ---06/04/2019 02:22:19 PM---Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
To: Doug Davis <dug@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>, Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 02:22 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"





Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of
scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:08 PM Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
>
> Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.
>
> 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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
> To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
> Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
> Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
> Sent by: cncf-toc@...
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Yep, they are.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >
> > As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
> >
> >     This email is from an external sender.
> >
> >
> >     Jeff
> >
> >     I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
> >     and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
> >     supporting dev tools.
> >
> >     IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
> >
> >     Does this make sense?
> >
> >     a
> >
> >     On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >     >
> >     > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
> >     >
> >     > Jeff
> >     >
> >     > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     This email is from an external sender.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
> >     >
> >     >     Our next step: draft a charter.  We'd love a few keen would-be
> >     >     SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please!   Also, we shall
> >     >     figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
> >     >
> >     >     Interested?  Email us offline.
> >     >
> >     >     Alexis+Michelle
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





Re: CNCF SIG "App Delivery"

Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
 

Liz, to be clear, is your opinion that PaaS, Frameworks, IDE's etc are:

a) out of scope of the CNCF
b) in scope of some other CNCF SIG (and if so, which?)
c) something else?

Q


From: Liz Rice <liz@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:30 AM
To: Quinton Hoole; alexis richardson
Cc: Doug Davis; cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
 
I am not sure we do ourselves any favours by separating Serverless into its own vertical. 

Would you expect serverless / function security to fall into the remit of SIG-security? I would. Given that, what if this SIG were to encompass app definition in both Serverless / functions and container-based approaches? 

I agree with Alexis that moving up the stack to frameworks / IDEs etc is a huge area that doesn't need to be in scope. 

Liz
On 4 Jun 2019, 20:27 +0200, alexis richardson <alexis@...>, wrote:
i see app frameworks and platforms as "next tier in the stack" that should draw on foundations from the CNCF SIGs, including app delivery, security, storage, ...

Plus, there will be 1000s of them.

So please can they have their own Area.



On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:55 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
My personal opinion is that everything that we consider to be in scope of the CNCF needs to be in scope for at least one CNCF SIG.  Ergo anything that is declared out of scope for this CNCF Apps SIG either needs to be in scope of another SIG, or our of scope of the CNCF in general.

My other personal opinion that is of relevance here is that we should keep the number of CNCF SIGs as small as possible today (based on the "SIG Sprawl" experience in Kubernetes, which resulted in large numbers of ineffective SIGs - we saw much more of that failure case than "A highly effective SIG whose scope is too broad").

CNCF SIGs should by all means contain more specifically focussed subgroups (whether it be a working group, or a sub-project, or whatever), but I think each subgroup should be very clearly under the auspices of a CNCF SIG.

So, to get back to the original question regarding scope of this SIG, I would suggest that:

  1. Serverless applications should be considered a subclass of applications, and fall within this CNCF Apps SIG.
  2. Serverless infrastructure (e.g. how to build FaaS systems on top of Kubernetes, etc) should fall under the "CNCF Core and Applied Architectures" SIG.
  3. PaaS and the other areas I mentioned (Cloud IDE's, CI/CD, Experiment frameworks etc) should fall under this CNCF Apps SIG, unless (1) we can convince another CNCF SIG to consider them in scope (seems highly dubious), or (2) the TOC deems them to be out of scope of the CNCF as a whole (also seems highly dubious).
My 2c

Q



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:08 AM
To: alexis richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
 

Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.

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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:

From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...





Yep, they are.


On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
>
>     This email is from an external sender.
>
>
>     Jeff
>
>     I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
>     and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
>     supporting dev tools.
>
>     IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
>
>     Does this make sense?
>
>     a
>
>     On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>     >
>     > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
>     >
>     > Jeff
>     >
>     > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
>     >
>     >     This email is from an external sender.
>     >
>     >
>     >     Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
>     >
>     >     Our next step: draft a charter.  We'd love a few keen would-be
>     >     SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please!   Also, we shall
>     >     figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
>     >
>     >     Interested?  Email us offline.
>     >
>     >     Alexis+Michelle
>     >
>     >    
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>








Re: CNCF SIG "App Delivery"

Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
 

To be clear, I totally agree that "trying to address every project in that space" is not a goal, and neither can it be for almost any of the CNCF SIGs (Storage, Security, Traffic/Networking clearly also suffer from a similar problem).  

However, like CNCF SIG Storage did, a white paper clarifying the landscape and terminology, and helping to prioritize which specific points in the space are most interesting and of highest priority is useful, and one of the primary purposes of CNCF SIGs.

 Q


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:39 AM
To: Doug Davis
Cc: Alexis Richardson; Jeff Brewer; cncf-toc@...; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
 
I believe they are by nature in scope - but also trying to address every project in those spaces is boiling the ocean. 

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave SSuite 1000
Seattle WA 98104

(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


On Jun 4, 2019, at 11:38 AM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

Is there a doc that gives a more detailed explanation of what "App Delivery" is meant to cover?
I honestly do not know what it means for both PaaS and Serverless to be out of scope when I believe all of them are (probably) based on containers and therefore will leverage container images as part of "App Delivery".


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

<graycol.gif>Alexis Richardson ---06/04/2019 02:22:19 PM---Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
To: Doug Davis <dug@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>, Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 02:22 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"





Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of
scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:08 PM Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
>
> Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.
>
> 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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
> To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
> Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
> Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
> Sent by: cncf-toc@...
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Yep, they are.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >
> > As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
> >
> >     This email is from an external sender.
> >
> >
> >     Jeff
> >
> >     I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
> >     and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
> >     supporting dev tools.
> >
> >     IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
> >
> >     Does this make sense?
> >
> >     a
> >
> >     On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >     >
> >     > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
> >     >
> >     > Jeff
> >     >
> >     > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     This email is from an external sender.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
> >     >
> >     >     Our next step: draft a charter.  We'd love a few keen would-be
> >     >     SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please!   Also, we shall
> >     >     figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
> >     >
> >     >     Interested?  Email us offline.
> >     >
> >     >     Alexis+Michelle
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





Re: CNCF SIG "App Delivery"

Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
 

PS: Regarding "there will be 1000's of them", I think it's worth noting that the same can be said about most CNCF SIG's.  There are thousands of projects and vendors related to Traffic/Networking, Storage, Security, etc.  But I still believe that each of these areas is well-defined enough to benefit from an umbrella CNCF SIG.

Q


From: Quinton Hoole
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:37 AM
To: Alexis Richardson
Cc: Doug Davis; cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
 
Alexis, it's not clear whether you're proposing:

a) Creating a new CNCF SIG to cover "App Frameworks, Platforms etc", or
b) Declaring these to be out of scope of the CNCF.

If you're suggesting (a) then I would be fairly well positioned to help to put that together, if needed.

Q

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:27 AM
To: Quinton Hoole
Cc: Doug Davis; cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
 
i see app frameworks and platforms as "next tier in the stack" that should draw on foundations from the CNCF SIGs, including app delivery, security, storage, ...

Plus, there will be 1000s of them.

So please can they have their own Area.



On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:55 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
My personal opinion is that everything that we consider to be in scope of the CNCF needs to be in scope for at least one CNCF SIG.  Ergo anything that is declared out of scope for this CNCF Apps SIG either needs to be in scope of another SIG, or our of scope of the CNCF in general.

My other personal opinion that is of relevance here is that we should keep the number of CNCF SIGs as small as possible today (based on the "SIG Sprawl" experience in Kubernetes, which resulted in large numbers of ineffective SIGs - we saw much more of that failure case than "A highly effective SIG whose scope is too broad").

CNCF SIGs should by all means contain more specifically focussed subgroups (whether it be a working group, or a sub-project, or whatever), but I think each subgroup should be very clearly under the auspices of a CNCF SIG.

So, to get back to the original question regarding scope of this SIG, I would suggest that:

  1. Serverless applications should be considered a subclass of applications, and fall within this CNCF Apps SIG.
  2. Serverless infrastructure (e.g. how to build FaaS systems on top of Kubernetes, etc) should fall under the "CNCF Core and Applied Architectures" SIG.
  3. PaaS and the other areas I mentioned (Cloud IDE's, CI/CD, Experiment frameworks etc) should fall under this CNCF Apps SIG, unless (1) we can convince another CNCF SIG to consider them in scope (seems highly dubious), or (2) the TOC deems them to be out of scope of the CNCF as a whole (also seems highly dubious).
My 2c

Q



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:08 AM
To: alexis richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
 

Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.

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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:

From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...





Yep, they are.


On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
>
>     This email is from an external sender.
>
>
>     Jeff
>
>     I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
>     and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
>     supporting dev tools.
>
>     IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
>
>     Does this make sense?
>
>     a
>
>     On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>     >
>     > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
>     >
>     > Jeff
>     >
>     > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
>     >
>     >     This email is from an external sender.
>     >
>     >
>     >     Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
>     >
>     >     Our next step: draft a charter.  We'd love a few keen would-be
>     >     SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please!   Also, we shall
>     >     figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
>     >
>     >     Interested?  Email us offline.
>     >
>     >     Alexis+Michelle
>     >
>     >    
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>








Re: CNCF SIG "App Delivery"

Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
 

Alexis, it's not clear whether you're proposing:

a) Creating a new CNCF SIG to cover "App Frameworks, Platforms etc", or
b) Declaring these to be out of scope of the CNCF.

If you're suggesting (a) then I would be fairly well positioned to help to put that together, if needed.

Q


From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:27 AM
To: Quinton Hoole
Cc: Doug Davis; cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
 
i see app frameworks and platforms as "next tier in the stack" that should draw on foundations from the CNCF SIGs, including app delivery, security, storage, ...

Plus, there will be 1000s of them.

So please can they have their own Area.



On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:55 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
My personal opinion is that everything that we consider to be in scope of the CNCF needs to be in scope for at least one CNCF SIG.  Ergo anything that is declared out of scope for this CNCF Apps SIG either needs to be in scope of another SIG, or our of scope of the CNCF in general.

My other personal opinion that is of relevance here is that we should keep the number of CNCF SIGs as small as possible today (based on the "SIG Sprawl" experience in Kubernetes, which resulted in large numbers of ineffective SIGs - we saw much more of that failure case than "A highly effective SIG whose scope is too broad").

CNCF SIGs should by all means contain more specifically focussed subgroups (whether it be a working group, or a sub-project, or whatever), but I think each subgroup should be very clearly under the auspices of a CNCF SIG.

So, to get back to the original question regarding scope of this SIG, I would suggest that:

  1. Serverless applications should be considered a subclass of applications, and fall within this CNCF Apps SIG.
  2. Serverless infrastructure (e.g. how to build FaaS systems on top of Kubernetes, etc) should fall under the "CNCF Core and Applied Architectures" SIG.
  3. PaaS and the other areas I mentioned (Cloud IDE's, CI/CD, Experiment frameworks etc) should fall under this CNCF Apps SIG, unless (1) we can convince another CNCF SIG to consider them in scope (seems highly dubious), or (2) the TOC deems them to be out of scope of the CNCF as a whole (also seems highly dubious).
My 2c

Q



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:08 AM
To: alexis richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
 

Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.

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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:

From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...





Yep, they are.


On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
>
>     This email is from an external sender.
>
>
>     Jeff
>
>     I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
>     and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
>     supporting dev tools.
>
>     IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
>
>     Does this make sense?
>
>     a
>
>     On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>     >
>     > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
>     >
>     > Jeff
>     >
>     > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
>     >
>     >     This email is from an external sender.
>     >
>     >
>     >     Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
>     >
>     >     Our next step: draft a charter.  We'd love a few keen would-be
>     >     SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please!   Also, we shall
>     >     figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
>     >
>     >     Interested?  Email us offline.
>     >
>     >     Alexis+Michelle
>     >
>     >    
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>







2401 - 2420 of 5800