Date   

Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

alexis richardson
 

+1 binding


On Fri, 2 Aug 2019, 18:15 Igor Mameshin, <igor@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding


On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:04 AM Jon Mittelhauser <jon.mittelhauser@...> wrote:

+1 NB

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>
Date: Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:03 AM
To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] rkt archiving

 

+1 binding

 

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:31 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multiple discussions on this topic across a few TOC meetings.

 

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/262

 

This is our first project we are archiving based on our new process so I want to be diligent and take the extra time, on top of explaining what archiving means for a project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/archiving.md

 

- CNCF will no longer provide support for the project via service desk
- CNCF will list archived projects online
- Trademarks and domain names of archived projects are still hosted neutrally by the CNCF and the Linux Foundation
- CNCF can provide services such as documentation updates to help transition users.
- Other CNCF marketing activities will no longer be provided for the project (like space at conferences)

 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community.

 

--

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


Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

Igor Mameshin
 

+1 non-binding


On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:04 AM Jon Mittelhauser <jon.mittelhauser@...> wrote:

+1 NB

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>
Date: Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:03 AM
To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] rkt archiving

 

+1 binding

 

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:31 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multiple discussions on this topic across a few TOC meetings.

 

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/262

 

This is our first project we are archiving based on our new process so I want to be diligent and take the extra time, on top of explaining what archiving means for a project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/archiving.md

 

- CNCF will no longer provide support for the project via service desk
- CNCF will list archived projects online
- Trademarks and domain names of archived projects are still hosted neutrally by the CNCF and the Linux Foundation
- CNCF can provide services such as documentation updates to help transition users.
- Other CNCF marketing activities will no longer be provided for the project (like space at conferences)

 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community.

 

--

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


Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

Jon Mittelhauser
 

+1 NB

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>
Date: Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:03 AM
To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] rkt archiving

 

+1 binding

 

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:31 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multiple discussions on this topic across a few TOC meetings.

 

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/262

 

This is our first project we are archiving based on our new process so I want to be diligent and take the extra time, on top of explaining what archiving means for a project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/archiving.md

 

- CNCF will no longer provide support for the project via service desk
- CNCF will list archived projects online
- Trademarks and domain names of archived projects are still hosted neutrally by the CNCF and the Linux Foundation
- CNCF can provide services such as documentation updates to help transition users.
- Other CNCF marketing activities will no longer be provided for the project (like space at conferences)

 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community.

 

--

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


Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

Matt Klein
 

+1 binding

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:31 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multiple discussions on this topic across a few TOC meetings.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/262

This is our first project we are archiving based on our new process so I want to be diligent and take the extra time, on top of explaining what archiving means for a project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/archiving.md

- CNCF will no longer provide support for the project via service desk
- CNCF will list archived projects online
- Trademarks and domain names of archived projects are still hosted neutrally by the CNCF and the Linux Foundation
- CNCF can provide services such as documentation updates to help transition users.
- Other CNCF marketing activities will no longer be provided for the project (like space at conferences)

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community.

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


Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

Li, Xiang
 

------------------------------------------------------------------
发件人:Chris Aniszczyk<caniszczyk@...>
日 期:2019年08月02日 23:30:26
收件人:CNCF TOC<cncf-toc@...>
主 题:[cncf-toc] [VOTE] rkt archiving

Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multiple discussions on this topic across a few TOC meetings.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/262

This is our first project we are archiving based on our new process so I want to be diligent and take the extra time, on top of explaining what archiving means for a project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/archiving.md

- CNCF will no longer provide support for the project via service desk
- CNCF will list archived projects online
- Trademarks and domain names of archived projects are still hosted neutrally by the CNCF and the Linux Foundation
- CNCF can provide services such as documentation updates to help transition users.
- Other CNCF marketing activities will no longer be provided for the project (like space at conferences)

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community.

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


Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

Brendan Burns
 

+1, binding


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...>
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 9:49:09 AM
To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] rkt archiving
 
+1 binding

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:31 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multiple discussions on this topic across a few TOC meetings.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/262

This is our first project we are archiving based on our new process so I want to be diligent and take the extra time, on top of explaining what archiving means for a project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/archiving.md

- CNCF will no longer provide support for the project via service desk
- CNCF will list archived projects online
- Trademarks and domain names of archived projects are still hosted neutrally by the CNCF and the Linux Foundation
- CNCF can provide services such as documentation updates to help transition users.
- Other CNCF marketing activities will no longer be provided for the project (like space at conferences)

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community.

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


Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

Brian Grant
 

+1 binding

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:31 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multiple discussions on this topic across a few TOC meetings.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/262

This is our first project we are archiving based on our new process so I want to be diligent and take the extra time, on top of explaining what archiving means for a project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/archiving.md

- CNCF will no longer provide support for the project via service desk
- CNCF will list archived projects online
- Trademarks and domain names of archived projects are still hosted neutrally by the CNCF and the Linux Foundation
- CNCF can provide services such as documentation updates to help transition users.
- Other CNCF marketing activities will no longer be provided for the project (like space at conferences)

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community.

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


Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

Stephen Augustus
 

+1 nb
*Stares at my rkt shirt with tears in my eyes*

-- Stephen


On Fri, Aug 2, 2019, 11:31 Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multiple discussions on this topic across a few TOC meetings.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/262

This is our first project we are archiving based on our new process so I want to be diligent and take the extra time, on top of explaining what archiving means for a project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/archiving.md

- CNCF will no longer provide support for the project via service desk
- CNCF will list archived projects online
- Trademarks and domain names of archived projects are still hosted neutrally by the CNCF and the Linux Foundation
- CNCF can provide services such as documentation updates to help transition users.
- Other CNCF marketing activities will no longer be provided for the project (like space at conferences)

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community.

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


Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

Chris Short
 

+1 NB but CoreOS still had the best logos

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 11:50 via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

+1 binding

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Friday, August 2, 2019 at 8:31 AM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] rkt archiving

 

Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multiple discussions on this topic across a few TOC meetings.

 

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/262

 

This is our first project we are archiving based on our new process so I want to be diligent and take the extra time, on top of explaining what archiving means for a project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/archiving.md

 

- CNCF will no longer provide support for the project via service desk
- CNCF will list archived projects online
- Trademarks and domain names of archived projects are still hosted neutrally by the CNCF and the Linux Foundation
- CNCF can provide services such as documentation updates to help transition users.
- Other CNCF marketing activities will no longer be provided for the project (like space at conferences)

 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community.

 

--

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

--

Chris Short
He/Him/They


Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
 

+1 binding

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Friday, August 2, 2019 at 8:31 AM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] rkt archiving

 

Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multiple discussions on this topic across a few TOC meetings.

 

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/262

 

This is our first project we are archiving based on our new process so I want to be diligent and take the extra time, on top of explaining what archiving means for a project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/archiving.md

 

- CNCF will no longer provide support for the project via service desk
- CNCF will list archived projects online
- Trademarks and domain names of archived projects are still hosted neutrally by the CNCF and the Linux Foundation
- CNCF can provide services such as documentation updates to help transition users.
- Other CNCF marketing activities will no longer be provided for the project (like space at conferences)

 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community.

 

--

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


Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

Matthew Hunt (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX)
 

+1

From: caniszczyk@... At: 08/02/19 11:31:04
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] rkt archiving

Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multiple discussions on this topic across a few TOC meetings.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/262

This is our first project we are archiving based on our new process so I want to be diligent and take the extra time, on top of explaining what archiving means for a project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/archiving.md

- CNCF will no longer provide support for the project via service desk
- CNCF will list archived projects online
- Trademarks and domain names of archived projects are still hosted neutrally by the CNCF and the Linux Foundation
- CNCF can provide services such as documentation updates to help transition users.
- Other CNCF marketing activities will no longer be provided for the project (like space at conferences)

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community.

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


Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

Randy Abernethy
 

+1 nb

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:31 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multiple discussions on this topic across a few TOC meetings.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/262

This is our first project we are archiving based on our new process so I want to be diligent and take the extra time, on top of explaining what archiving means for a project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/archiving.md

- CNCF will no longer provide support for the project via service desk
- CNCF will list archived projects online
- Trademarks and domain names of archived projects are still hosted neutrally by the CNCF and the Linux Foundation
- CNCF can provide services such as documentation updates to help transition users.
- Other CNCF marketing activities will no longer be provided for the project (like space at conferences)

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community.

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



--
-- 
Randy Abernethy
Managing Partner
RX-M, LLC
randy.abernethy@...
o 415-800-2922
c 415-624-6447


Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

Ruben Orduz <orduzr@...>
 

With sadness +1 (nb)

On Aug 2, 2019, at 11:30 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via Lists.Cncf.Io <caniszczyk=linuxfoundation.org@...> wrote:

Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multiple discussions on this topic across a few TOC meetings.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/262

This is our first project we are archiving based on our new process so I want to be diligent and take the extra time, on top of explaining what archiving means for a project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/archiving.md

- CNCF will no longer provide support for the project via service desk
- CNCF will list archived projects online
- Trademarks and domain names of archived projects are still hosted neutrally by the CNCF and the Linux Foundation
- CNCF can provide services such as documentation updates to help transition users.
- Other CNCF marketing activities will no longer be provided for the project (like space at conferences)

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community.

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


Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

+1 nb


thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Hybrid Cloud | OM Knative
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

"Chris Aniszczyk" ---08/02/2019 11:31:09 AM---Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multipl

From: "Chris Aniszczyk" <caniszczyk@...>
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 08/02/2019 11:31 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] [VOTE] rkt archiving
Sent by: cncf-toc@...





Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multiple discussions on this topic across a few TOC meetings.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/262

This is our first project we are archiving based on our new process so I want to be diligent and take the extra time, on top of explaining what archiving means for a project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/archiving.md

- CNCF will no longer provide support for the project via service desk
- CNCF will list archived projects online
- Trademarks and domain names of archived projects are still hosted neutrally by the CNCF and the Linux Foundation
- CNCF can provide services such as documentation updates to help transition users.
- Other CNCF marketing activities will no longer be provided for the project (like space at conferences)

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community.

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




[VOTE] rkt archiving

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multiple discussions on this topic across a few TOC meetings.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/262

This is our first project we are archiving based on our new process so I want to be diligent and take the extra time, on top of explaining what archiving means for a project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/archiving.md

- CNCF will no longer provide support for the project via service desk
- CNCF will list archived projects online
- Trademarks and domain names of archived projects are still hosted neutrally by the CNCF and the Linux Foundation
- CNCF can provide services such as documentation updates to help transition users.
- Other CNCF marketing activities will no longer be provided for the project (like space at conferences)

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community.

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


Draft of Application Delivery SIG Charter available

Reitbauer, Alois <alois.reitbauer@...>
 

The first draft of the application delivery SIG charter is available here [1]. We ask everyone on the mailing list as well as the TOC for feedback.

 

Please let us know as well if you want us to schedule a call with the TOC to discuss the charter and related activities of the application delivery SIG.

 

 

// Alois

 

 

[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PpHh9D1rE7efR4mX_ClQC1V_piCiP5KMgCpbJp3zMDw/edit?pli=1#

 

The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Dynatrace Austria GmbH (registration number FN 91482h) is a company registered in Linz whose registered office is at 4040 Linz, Austria, Freistädterstraße 313


Re: Bias and publishing guidance from CNCF

alexis richardson
 

+1 for "review", +1 for learning from ACM & academia

I still think we cannot pretend to be unbiased. Even algos are biased.

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 2:27 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Thanks for kicking off this thread, Gareth.

I'm reminded of a couple things when it comes to attribution and bias:

Academic and society papers (e.g., ACM) have author attribution including institution. The ACM template goes so far as to include the department. https://www.acm.org/publications/proceedings-template
In journalistic publications associations and their context are documented. Whether they are the reporters (e.g., they have shares in a company they are writing about) or even those of the publication they are writing for (e.g., the publications parent company owns who they are writing about).


I would hope we have a review process for any documentation being produced. We review PRs, editors review books and papers, and we should have a documented process for reviewing documentation produced by the TOC/SIGs.

Would a template for these papers make sense with a template section on the authors leading or requiring them to disclose their organizations be useful?

I know the apps space has A LOT of projects, products, and companies. I've seen numerous people share different ideas of what they think should be in it. Some are looking for any little thing that can be a competitive advantage to differentiate themselves. I would suggest a good process to look out for the best interest of the end users while attempting to limit bias or at least disclose it well.

- Matt Farina

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, at 8:49 AM, Liz Rice wrote:

Agreed, this is an important point, and good to expose to sunlight.

I like Alexis’ authorship statements and the point about listing authors and their affiliations.

Sometimes people’s biases might not even be obvious to their co-collaborators, so I think it would be appropriate to have some explicit guidelines that individuals are expected to flag up when they have a COI.

For example if a SIG is doing an assessment on project X, contributors might explicitly say

“project X competes with project Y that I’m a maintainer of / I have contributed substantially to ” or
“project X is potentially competitive with a product from my company”.

And then

“as a result I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to take part in this assessment” or
“as a result I am knowledgeable in the area, so I’d like to contribute, but please flag if you think my biases are showing”


Liz
On 1 Aug 2019, 11:44 +0100, Sarah Allen <sarah@...>, wrote:

Thanks for raising this Gareth. This is an open issue for SIG Security where we have a growing number of individuals participating in assessments and an open issue to write up guidelines: https://github.com/cncf/sig-security/issues/156

Having guidance from the TOC would be very helpful to be able to reference, and I've written up a TOC issue here:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/270

Sarah Allen
SIG-Security co-chair

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 4:58 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Thanks for posting this Gareth.

IMO it is better to be open about bias than to pretend it away.

We could state that documents coming from CNCF TOC & SIGs are marked
as "Authored by members of the CNCF community", and list all
contributors and affiliations. This would be in contrast to documents
commissioned by the CNCF organisation which are published as official
CNCF docs, authored by the CNCF staff.






On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:22 AM Gareth Rushgrove
<gareth@...> wrote:

Hi All

On a couple of calls yesterday (SIG Security, and discussions about
the proposed SIG App Delivery), the topic of bias or conflict of
interest came up. In discussion we thought it worth bringing to the
ToC, so here is an email.

One of the things being discussed as part of the SIG App Delivery
mission is "develop informational resources like guides, tutorials and
white papers". SIG Security produces recommendations for projects and
the ToC and is also looking at guidance. I'm sure other SIGs have in
mind to do something similar.

Part of the power of CNCF is it's a shared place for folks to
genuinely work together. But I don't think we should deny or otherwise
hide our bias, especially as we get into CNCF branded and published
material. I think most people want to do the right thing, but having
some guidance and discussion would help. Consider a few of the
following:

1. Conducting a private security review of a product associated with a
competitor
2. Guidance on <CNCF project> and <Cloud provider> written by <Cloud provider>
3. Tutorial on <CNCF project> which mentions <non-CNCF project>
4. Comparisons of <CNCF projects> and <non-CNCF projects>
5. Guidance on <CNCF project> which competes with <other CNCF project>
6. Guidance on <CNCF project> which competes with <non-CNCF project>
associated with <authors employee>
7. Organising a <CNCF branded event> which competes directly with
<CNCF member> event

Non of these are simply good or bad, context always matters. A few
things that could be discussed (not concrete suggestions, more to
start a conversation.)

1. All guidance carries authors and contributors and their affiliations
2. Contributors sign some impartiality document (social more than legal)
3. Clear review process which explicitly takes in bias
4. No single-vendor content attributed to CNCF

I think the ToC are probably _very_ aware of this sort of thing, but
as CNCF SIGs expand, more folks probably need to consider the same
things. I think CNCF affiliation is different from project
affiliation. Doing that collectively would be good. What processes do
we need in place? And are they SIG specific or more general? Is this
something folks care about?

Thanks

Gareth

--
Gareth Rushgrove
@garethr

devopsweekly.com
morethanseven.net
garethrushgrove.com






Re: Bias and publishing guidance from CNCF

Matt Farina
 

Thanks for kicking off this thread, Gareth.

I'm reminded of a couple things when it comes to attribution and bias:
  • Academic and society papers (e.g., ACM) have author attribution including institution. The ACM template goes so far as to include the department. https://www.acm.org/publications/proceedings-template
  • In journalistic publications associations and their context are documented. Whether they are the reporters (e.g., they have shares in a company they are writing about) or even those of the publication they are writing for (e.g., the publications parent company owns who they are writing about).

I would hope we have a review process for any documentation being produced. We review PRs, editors review books and papers, and we should have a documented process for reviewing documentation produced by the TOC/SIGs.

Would a template for these papers make sense with a template section on the authors leading or requiring them to disclose their organizations be useful?

I know the apps space has A LOT of projects, products, and companies. I've seen numerous people share different ideas of what they think should be in it. Some are looking for any little thing that can be a competitive advantage to differentiate themselves. I would suggest a good process to look out for the best interest of the end users while attempting to limit bias or at least disclose it well.

- Matt Farina

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, at 8:49 AM, Liz Rice wrote:
Agreed, this is an important point, and good to expose to sunlight. 

I like Alexis’ authorship statements and the point about listing authors and their affiliations. 

Sometimes people’s biases might not even be obvious to their co-collaborators, so I think it would be appropriate to have some explicit guidelines that individuals are expected to flag up when they have a COI. 

For example if a SIG is doing an assessment on project X, contributors might explicitly say 
  • “project X competes with project Y that I’m a maintainer of / I have contributed substantially to ” or 
  • “project X is potentially competitive with a product from my company”. 
And then
  • “as a result I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to take part in this assessment” or
  • “as a result I am knowledgeable in the area, so I’d like to contribute, but please flag if you think my biases are showing”

Liz
On 1 Aug 2019, 11:44 +0100, Sarah Allen <sarah@...>, wrote:

Thanks for raising this Gareth.  This is an open issue for SIG Security where we have a growing number of individuals participating in assessments and an open issue to write up guidelines: https://github.com/cncf/sig-security/issues/156

Having guidance from the TOC would be very helpful to be able to reference, and I've written up a TOC issue here:

Sarah Allen
SIG-Security co-chair

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 4:58 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thanks for posting this Gareth.

IMO it is better to be open about bias than to pretend it away.

We could state that documents coming from CNCF TOC & SIGs are marked
as "Authored by members of the CNCF community", and list all
contributors and affiliations.  This would be in contrast to documents
commissioned by the CNCF organisation which are published as official
CNCF docs, authored by the CNCF staff.






On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:22 AM Gareth Rushgrove
<gareth@...> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> On a couple of calls yesterday (SIG Security, and discussions about
> the proposed SIG App Delivery), the topic of bias or conflict of
> interest came up. In discussion we thought it worth bringing to the
> ToC, so here is an email.
>
> One of the things being discussed as part of the SIG App Delivery
> mission is "develop informational resources like guides, tutorials and
> white papers". SIG Security produces recommendations for projects and
> the ToC and is also looking at guidance. I'm sure other SIGs have in
> mind to do something similar.
>
> Part of the power of CNCF is it's a shared place for folks to
> genuinely work together. But I don't think we should deny or otherwise
> hide our bias, especially as we get into CNCF branded and published
> material. I think most people want to do the right thing, but having
> some guidance and discussion would help. Consider a few of the
> following:
>
> 1. Conducting a private security review of a product associated with a
> competitor
> 2. Guidance on <CNCF project> and <Cloud provider> written by <Cloud provider>
> 3. Tutorial on <CNCF project> which mentions <non-CNCF project>
> 4. Comparisons of <CNCF projects> and <non-CNCF projects>
> 5. Guidance on <CNCF project> which competes with <other CNCF project>
> 6. Guidance on <CNCF project> which competes with <non-CNCF project>
> associated with <authors employee>
> 7. Organising a <CNCF branded event> which competes directly with
> <CNCF member> event
>
> Non of these are simply good or bad, context always matters. A few
> things that could be discussed (not concrete suggestions, more to
> start a conversation.)
>
> 1. All guidance carries authors and contributors and their affiliations
> 2. Contributors sign some impartiality document (social more than legal)
> 3. Clear review process which explicitly takes in bias
> 4. No single-vendor content attributed to CNCF
>
> I think the ToC are probably _very_ aware of this sort of thing, but
> as CNCF SIGs expand, more folks probably need to consider the same
> things. I think CNCF affiliation is different from project
> affiliation. Doing that collectively would be good. What processes do
> we need in place? And are they SIG specific or more general? Is this
> something folks care about?
>
> Thanks
>
> Gareth
>
> --
> Gareth Rushgrove
> @garethr
>
>
>
>





Re: Bias and publishing guidance from CNCF

Liz Rice
 

Agreed, this is an important point, and good to expose to sunlight. 

I like Alexis’ authorship statements and the point about listing authors and their affiliations. 

Sometimes people’s biases might not even be obvious to their co-collaborators, so I think it would be appropriate to have some explicit guidelines that individuals are expected to flag up when they have a COI. 

For example if a SIG is doing an assessment on project X, contributors might explicitly say 
  • “project X competes with project Y that I’m a maintainer of / I have contributed substantially to ” or 
  • “project X is potentially competitive with a product from my company”. 
And then
  • “as a result I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to take part in this assessment” or
  • “as a result I am knowledgeable in the area, so I’d like to contribute, but please flag if you think my biases are showing”

Liz

On 1 Aug 2019, 11:44 +0100, Sarah Allen <sarah@...>, wrote:
Thanks for raising this Gareth.  This is an open issue for SIG Security where we have a growing number of individuals participating in assessments and an open issue to write up guidelines: https://github.com/cncf/sig-security/issues/156

Having guidance from the TOC would be very helpful to be able to reference, and I've written up a TOC issue here:

Sarah Allen
SIG-Security co-chair

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 4:58 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thanks for posting this Gareth.

IMO it is better to be open about bias than to pretend it away.

We could state that documents coming from CNCF TOC & SIGs are marked
as "Authored by members of the CNCF community", and list all
contributors and affiliations.  This would be in contrast to documents
commissioned by the CNCF organisation which are published as official
CNCF docs, authored by the CNCF staff.






On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:22 AM Gareth Rushgrove
<gareth@...> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> On a couple of calls yesterday (SIG Security, and discussions about
> the proposed SIG App Delivery), the topic of bias or conflict of
> interest came up. In discussion we thought it worth bringing to the
> ToC, so here is an email.
>
> One of the things being discussed as part of the SIG App Delivery
> mission is "develop informational resources like guides, tutorials and
> white papers". SIG Security produces recommendations for projects and
> the ToC and is also looking at guidance. I'm sure other SIGs have in
> mind to do something similar.
>
> Part of the power of CNCF is it's a shared place for folks to
> genuinely work together. But I don't think we should deny or otherwise
> hide our bias, especially as we get into CNCF branded and published
> material. I think most people want to do the right thing, but having
> some guidance and discussion would help. Consider a few of the
> following:
>
> 1. Conducting a private security review of a product associated with a
> competitor
> 2. Guidance on <CNCF project> and <Cloud provider> written by <Cloud provider>
> 3. Tutorial on <CNCF project> which mentions <non-CNCF project>
> 4. Comparisons of <CNCF projects> and <non-CNCF projects>
> 5. Guidance on <CNCF project> which competes with <other CNCF project>
> 6. Guidance on <CNCF project> which competes with <non-CNCF project>
> associated with <authors employee>
> 7. Organising a <CNCF branded event> which competes directly with
> <CNCF member> event
>
> Non of these are simply good or bad, context always matters. A few
> things that could be discussed (not concrete suggestions, more to
> start a conversation.)
>
> 1. All guidance carries authors and contributors and their affiliations
> 2. Contributors sign some impartiality document (social more than legal)
> 3. Clear review process which explicitly takes in bias
> 4. No single-vendor content attributed to CNCF
>
> I think the ToC are probably _very_ aware of this sort of thing, but
> as CNCF SIGs expand, more folks probably need to consider the same
> things. I think CNCF affiliation is different from project
> affiliation. Doing that collectively would be good. What processes do
> we need in place? And are they SIG specific or more general? Is this
> something folks care about?
>
> Thanks
>
> Gareth
>
> --
> Gareth Rushgrove
> @garethr
>
> devopsweekly.com
> morethanseven.net
> garethrushgrove.com
>
>
>




Re: Bias and publishing guidance from CNCF

Sarah Allen
 

Thanks for raising this Gareth.  This is an open issue for SIG Security where we have a growing number of individuals participating in assessments and an open issue to write up guidelines: https://github.com/cncf/sig-security/issues/156

Having guidance from the TOC would be very helpful to be able to reference, and I've written up a TOC issue here:

Sarah Allen
SIG-Security co-chair

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 4:58 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thanks for posting this Gareth.

IMO it is better to be open about bias than to pretend it away.

We could state that documents coming from CNCF TOC & SIGs are marked
as "Authored by members of the CNCF community", and list all
contributors and affiliations.  This would be in contrast to documents
commissioned by the CNCF organisation which are published as official
CNCF docs, authored by the CNCF staff.






On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:22 AM Gareth Rushgrove
<gareth@...> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> On a couple of calls yesterday (SIG Security, and discussions about
> the proposed SIG App Delivery), the topic of bias or conflict of
> interest came up. In discussion we thought it worth bringing to the
> ToC, so here is an email.
>
> One of the things being discussed as part of the SIG App Delivery
> mission is "develop informational resources like guides, tutorials and
> white papers". SIG Security produces recommendations for projects and
> the ToC and is also looking at guidance. I'm sure other SIGs have in
> mind to do something similar.
>
> Part of the power of CNCF is it's a shared place for folks to
> genuinely work together. But I don't think we should deny or otherwise
> hide our bias, especially as we get into CNCF branded and published
> material. I think most people want to do the right thing, but having
> some guidance and discussion would help. Consider a few of the
> following:
>
> 1. Conducting a private security review of a product associated with a
> competitor
> 2. Guidance on <CNCF project> and <Cloud provider> written by <Cloud provider>
> 3. Tutorial on <CNCF project> which mentions <non-CNCF project>
> 4. Comparisons of <CNCF projects> and <non-CNCF projects>
> 5. Guidance on <CNCF project> which competes with <other CNCF project>
> 6. Guidance on <CNCF project> which competes with <non-CNCF project>
> associated with <authors employee>
> 7. Organising a <CNCF branded event> which competes directly with
> <CNCF member> event
>
> Non of these are simply good or bad, context always matters. A few
> things that could be discussed (not concrete suggestions, more to
> start a conversation.)
>
> 1. All guidance carries authors and contributors and their affiliations
> 2. Contributors sign some impartiality document (social more than legal)
> 3. Clear review process which explicitly takes in bias
> 4. No single-vendor content attributed to CNCF
>
> I think the ToC are probably _very_ aware of this sort of thing, but
> as CNCF SIGs expand, more folks probably need to consider the same
> things. I think CNCF affiliation is different from project
> affiliation. Doing that collectively would be good. What processes do
> we need in place? And are they SIG specific or more general? Is this
> something folks care about?
>
> Thanks
>
> Gareth
>
> --
> Gareth Rushgrove
> @garethr
>
> devopsweekly.com
> morethanseven.net
> garethrushgrove.com
>
>
>



4061 - 4080 of 7556