Date   

Falco DD & Request for Incubation Vote

Michael Ducy
 

TOC members;

Joe Beda, assisted by Kris Nova and myself, has completed the technical due diligence for Falco, and we would like to request that a formal vote be held for moving Falco to incubation. 

As a reminder, our goals in moving to incubation include:

* Moving Falco's build and release infrastructure to CNCF provided infrastructure.
* Capturing and building on the current momentum of the project. 
* Publishing of end user case studies.
* Further helping customers achieve compliance in Kubernetes/Cloud Native environments.

Falco Due Diligence:

Technical Explanation of Falco's Architecture and relationship to the Kernel/eBPF capture interface:

Falco PR for Incubation:

Current Falco Release:


We look forward to feedback from the TOC and broader community.

The Falco Team


[RESULT] Vitess graduation (APPROVED)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The Vitess project has been approved to the graduated maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

+1 binding TOC votes (6/9):
Matt Klein: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3689
Brendan Burns: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3693
Joe Beda: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3697
Xiang Li: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3703
Jeff Brewer: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3708
Liz Rice: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3715

+1 non-binding community votes:
Chris Short: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3680
Ken Owens: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3681
Lee Calcote: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3682
Deepthi Sigireddi: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3683
Jitendra Vaidya: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3685
Derek Perkins: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3686
Kiran Mova: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3687
Alex Chircop: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3690
Xing Yang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3691
Naren Narendra: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3692
Siddharth Bhadri: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3696
Dan Kozlowski: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3699
Randy Abernethy: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3700
Michael Demmer: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3702
Haifeng Liu: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3704
Pengfei Ni: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3706
Niraji Tolia: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3707
Philipe Robin: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3709
Nicola Marco Decandia: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3710
Nick Chase: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3712
Leonardo Di Donato: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3713
Rabi Abdel: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3714

Thanks!

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


Agenda for 11/05

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

Hey all, we are meeting tomorrow:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jpoKT12jf2jTf-2EJSAl4iTdA7Aoj_uiI19qIaECNFc/edit#heading=h.j2p1vp8nmsfk
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/12B5dGc8lMxKeKBFS8pGoldBtZaIWBtDYUFSNcG0mnCc/edit#slide=id.g25ca91f87f_0_56

We have a review of CNCF SIGs, a review of the sandbox process, and
Harbor's Graduation Review.

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager, CNCF | amye@linuxfoundation.org


Re: Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

Quinton - Thanks for mentioning SIG-Runtime - I forgot about this suggestion. Do you think CloudEvents would be under SIG-Runtime? It mentioning orchestration and batch seems like it might fit under there. WDYT?


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

Quinton Hoole ---11/02/2019 10:50:53 AM---I agee Liz I think serverless app development falls under sig-apps, and serveless runtimes fall unde

From: Quinton Hoole <qhoole@...>
To: Liz Rice via Lists.Cncf.Io <liz=lizrice.com@...>, Doug Davis <dug@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, "jbeda@..." <jbeda@...>
Date: 11/02/2019 10:50 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG





I agee Liz

I think serverless app development falls under sig-apps, and serveless runtimes fall under sig-runtime.
It's pretty common for work groups to span across a few SIGs.

Q



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Liz Rice via Lists.Cncf.Io <liz=lizrice.com@...>
Sent:
Saturday, November 2, 2019 4:53 AM
To:
Doug Davis <dug@...>; cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>; jbeda@... <jbeda@...>
Cc:
cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject:
Re: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

Thanks for the reminder on this Joe.

The Serverless WG has already been performing that role of defining the landscape in their space, identifying gaps, writing white papers... The bit we’re missing is the liaison that we have between TOC and SIGs, which I for one think is valuable.

After seeing that “Topic 4” diagram I am open to the idea of broadening to SIG App Platform. I foresee some confusion between that and SIG App Delivery with those names, though. Naming is hard.

I would love to hear thoughts from more folks on the relationship between Serverless and the new Runtime SIG - we could certainly discuss on the next TOC call. Personally I don’t think SIG Runtime is a natural home for CloudEvents, function frameworks and so on, so I think there is a real gap.

But there is some overlap already: Virtual Kubelet falls into Runtime’s charter, but also appears on the Serverless landscape. Runtime feels like the more natural home; is Serverless really the right place for VK on the landscape?


Liz
On 31 Oct 2019, 15:11 +0000, Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...>, wrote:
Hey fellow TOC members – poke on this? Thoughts?

A couple of questions in my mind:
Joe

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Date:
Monday, October 21, 2019 at 7:33 PM
To:
"cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject:
[cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

TOC members,

On a previous TOC call there was a request for feedback from the Serverless WG as to whether or not it would be a good fit for inclusion in the new AppDelivery SIG. During last week's WG call this topic was discussed and the net result is that the WG members felt that while there is some possible overlap, the scope of the WG is different enough that the SIG would not be an appropriate home for the WG. As a concrete example, it seems as though a project like CloudEvents (which came out of the WG's work) would not be in-scope for the AppDelivery SIG. With that, the WG thinks that a separate SIG might be more appropriate.

However, the creation of a Serverless SIG might be too limited in scope. One of the things that we're noticing is that the lines between CaaS, PaaS, FaaS and Serverless are getting blurry. Which means the distinction between the various platforms, or underlying technologies for each *aaS, is becoming less clear. Instead, the differences are becoming more akin to configuration settings rather than entirely distinct platform considerations. As such, the WG felt that an "AppPlatform" SIG might be more appropriate. This SIG could then focus on the underlying hosting technologies leveraged by higher-level SIGs (such as AppDelivery). It would be something along the lines of "Topic 4" in the diagram here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gMhRz4vEwiHa3uD8DqFKHGTSxrVJNgkLG2WZWvi9lXo/edit#bookmark=id.qv45kp7nb29b

We can discuss this on a future TOC call, but if the TOC is interested in this we can take the action item to write-up a formal charter to further clarify the proposal that we have in mind.


thanks
-Doug Davis/Mark Peek/Ken Owens



Re: Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

alexis richardson
 

SGTM

On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 3:31 PM Quinton Hoole <qhoole@futurewei.com> wrote:

Yes, although it probably makes most sense to house it under sig-apps if most of their attention is on the app dev part, rather than runtime infra. One of the sigs needs to carry the can for the wg. The WG should interact with sig-runtime regarding the runtime infra aspects.

Get Outlook for Android
________________________________
From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@weave.works>
Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 8:21:00 AM
To: Quinton Hoole <qhoole@futurewei.com>
Cc: Liz Rice via Lists.Cncf.Io <liz=lizrice.com@lists.cncf.io>; Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>; cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io>; jbeda@vmware.com <jbeda@vmware.com>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

so:

TOC
SIG-Apps & SIG-Runtime
WG-Serverless is a 'shared' WG between the 2 SIGs

?





On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 3:19 PM Quinton Hoole <qhoole@futurewei.com> wrote:

I agee Liz

I think serverless app development falls under sig-apps, and serveless runtimes fall under sig-runtime.
It's pretty common for work groups to span across a few SIGs.

Q

________________________________
From: cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io> on behalf of Liz Rice via Lists.Cncf.Io <liz=lizrice.com@lists.cncf.io>
Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 4:53 AM
To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>; cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io>; jbeda@vmware.com <jbeda@vmware.com>
Cc: cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

Thanks for the reminder on this Joe.

The Serverless WG has already been performing that role of defining the landscape in their space, identifying gaps, writing white papers... The bit we’re missing is the liaison that we have between TOC and SIGs, which I for one think is valuable.

After seeing that “Topic 4” diagram I am open to the idea of broadening to SIG App Platform. I foresee some confusion between that and SIG App Delivery with those names, though. Naming is hard.

I would love to hear thoughts from more folks on the relationship between Serverless and the new Runtime SIG - we could certainly discuss on the next TOC call. Personally I don’t think SIG Runtime is a natural home for CloudEvents, function frameworks and so on, so I think there is a real gap.

But there is some overlap already: Virtual Kubelet falls into Runtime’s charter, but also appears on the Serverless landscape. Runtime feels like the more natural home; is Serverless really the right place for VK on the landscape?


Liz
On 31 Oct 2019, 15:11 +0000, Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@lists.cncf.io>, wrote:

Hey fellow TOC members – poke on this? Thoughts?



A couple of questions in my mind:

How does this relate to the proposed Runtime SIG? (https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1rftGB1Wkc_VcG9gz0072uCUHIddViGtLwaO4boEb4qA%2Fedit&;data=02%7C01%7Cqhoole%40futurewei.com%7C0d053b29616f4f7d5c3d08d75fa84c2b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637083048767538606&amp;sdata=8gj%2Fd42ZZdqiWwnmi6VvlnFmDkdXaidrnp6lE%2FU7ffg%3D&amp;reserved=0)
How do we look at the differences between WGs and SIGs?

At a procedural level SIGs are rooted with the TOC and seen as an extension. WGs don’t have a formal relationship to the TOC.



Joe



From: <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 at 7:33 PM
To: "cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io" <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io>
Subject: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG



TOC members,

On a previous TOC call there was a request for feedback from the Serverless WG as to whether or not it would be a good fit for inclusion in the new AppDelivery SIG. During last week's WG call this topic was discussed and the net result is that the WG members felt that while there is some possible overlap, the scope of the WG is different enough that the SIG would not be an appropriate home for the WG. As a concrete example, it seems as though a project like CloudEvents (which came out of the WG's work) would not be in-scope for the AppDelivery SIG. With that, the WG thinks that a separate SIG might be more appropriate.

However, the creation of a Serverless SIG might be too limited in scope. One of the things that we're noticing is that the lines between CaaS, PaaS, FaaS and Serverless are getting blurry. Which means the distinction between the various platforms, or underlying technologies for each *aaS, is becoming less clear. Instead, the differences are becoming more akin to configuration settings rather than entirely distinct platform considerations. As such, the WG felt that an "AppPlatform" SIG might be more appropriate. This SIG could then focus on the underlying hosting technologies leveraged by higher-level SIGs (such as AppDelivery). It would be something along the lines of "Topic 4" in the diagram here: https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1gMhRz4vEwiHa3uD8DqFKHGTSxrVJNgkLG2WZWvi9lXo%2Fedit%23bookmark%3Did.qv45kp7nb29b&;data=02%7C01%7Cqhoole%40futurewei.com%7C0d053b29616f4f7d5c3d08d75fa84c2b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637083048767538606&amp;sdata=wzylCjWw9C0D6UYG3SjCmzO%2FjigzKczvshM%2Bj8spzls%3D&amp;reserved=0

We can discuss this on a future TOC call, but if the TOC is interested in this we can take the action item to write-up a formal charter to further clarify the proposal that we have in mind.


thanks
-Doug Davis/Mark Peek/Ken Owens


Re: Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

Quinton Hoole <qhoole@...>
 

Yes, although it probably makes most sense to house it under sig-apps if most of their attention is on the app dev part, rather than runtime infra.  One of the sigs needs to carry the can for the wg.  The WG should interact with sig-runtime regarding the runtime infra aspects.


From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 8:21:00 AM
To: Quinton Hoole <qhoole@...>
Cc: Liz Rice via Lists.Cncf.Io <liz=lizrice.com@...>; Doug Davis <dug@...>; cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>; jbeda@... <jbeda@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG
 
so:

TOC
SIG-Apps & SIG-Runtime
WG-Serverless is a 'shared' WG between the 2 SIGs

?





On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 3:19 PM Quinton Hoole <qhoole@...> wrote:
>
> I agee Liz
>
> I think serverless app development falls under sig-apps, and serveless runtimes fall under sig-runtime.
> It's pretty common for work groups to span across a few SIGs.
>
> Q
>
> ________________________________
> From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Liz Rice via Lists.Cncf.Io <liz=lizrice.com@...>
> Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 4:53 AM
> To: Doug Davis <dug@...>; cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>; jbeda@... <jbeda@...>
> Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG
>
> Thanks for the reminder on this Joe.
>
> The Serverless WG has already been performing that role of defining the landscape in their space, identifying gaps, writing white papers... The bit we’re missing is the liaison that we have between TOC and SIGs, which I for one think is valuable.
>
> After seeing that “Topic 4” diagram I am open to the idea of broadening to SIG App Platform. I foresee some confusion between that and SIG App Delivery with those names, though. Naming is hard.
>
> I would love to hear thoughts from more folks on the relationship between Serverless and the new Runtime SIG - we could certainly discuss on the next TOC call. Personally I don’t think SIG Runtime is a natural home for CloudEvents, function frameworks and so on, so I think there is a real gap.
>
> But there is some overlap already: Virtual Kubelet falls into Runtime’s charter, but also appears on the Serverless landscape. Runtime feels like the more natural home; is Serverless really the right place for VK on the landscape?
>
>
> Liz
> On 31 Oct 2019, 15:11 +0000, Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...>, wrote:
>
> Hey fellow TOC members – poke on this?  Thoughts?
>
>
>
> A couple of questions in my mind:
>
> How does this relate to the proposed Runtime SIG? (https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1rftGB1Wkc_VcG9gz0072uCUHIddViGtLwaO4boEb4qA%2Fedit&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cqhoole%40futurewei.com%7C0d053b29616f4f7d5c3d08d75fa84c2b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637083048767538606&amp;sdata=8gj%2Fd42ZZdqiWwnmi6VvlnFmDkdXaidrnp6lE%2FU7ffg%3D&amp;reserved=0)
> How do we look at the differences between WGs and SIGs?
>
> At a procedural level SIGs are rooted with the TOC and seen as an extension.  WGs don’t have a formal relationship to the TOC.
>
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
> Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 at 7:33 PM
> To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
> Subject: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG
>
>
>
> TOC members,
>
> On a previous TOC call there was a request for feedback from the Serverless WG as to whether or not it would be a good fit for inclusion in the new AppDelivery SIG. During last week's WG call this topic was discussed and the net result is that the WG members felt that while there is some possible overlap, the scope of the WG is different enough that the SIG would not be an appropriate home for the WG. As a concrete example, it seems as though a project like CloudEvents (which came out of the WG's work) would not be in-scope for the AppDelivery SIG. With that, the WG thinks that a separate SIG might be more appropriate.
>
> However, the creation of a Serverless SIG might be too limited in scope. One of the things that we're noticing is that the lines between CaaS, PaaS, FaaS and Serverless are getting blurry. Which means the distinction between the various platforms, or underlying technologies for each *aaS, is becoming less clear. Instead, the differences are becoming more akin to configuration settings rather than entirely distinct platform considerations. As such, the WG felt that an "AppPlatform" SIG might be more appropriate. This SIG could then focus on the underlying hosting technologies leveraged by higher-level SIGs (such as AppDelivery). It would be something along the lines of "Topic 4" in the diagram here: https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1gMhRz4vEwiHa3uD8DqFKHGTSxrVJNgkLG2WZWvi9lXo%2Fedit%23bookmark%3Did.qv45kp7nb29b&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cqhoole%40futurewei.com%7C0d053b29616f4f7d5c3d08d75fa84c2b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637083048767538606&amp;sdata=wzylCjWw9C0D6UYG3SjCmzO%2FjigzKczvshM%2Bj8spzls%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
> We can discuss this on a future TOC call, but if the TOC is interested in this we can take the action item to write-up a formal charter to further clarify the proposal that we have in mind.
>
>
> thanks
> -Doug Davis/Mark Peek/Ken Owens
>


Re: Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

alexis richardson
 

so:

TOC
SIG-Apps & SIG-Runtime
WG-Serverless is a 'shared' WG between the 2 SIGs

?

On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 3:19 PM Quinton Hoole <qhoole@futurewei.com> wrote:

I agee Liz

I think serverless app development falls under sig-apps, and serveless runtimes fall under sig-runtime.
It's pretty common for work groups to span across a few SIGs.

Q

________________________________
From: cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io> on behalf of Liz Rice via Lists.Cncf.Io <liz=lizrice.com@lists.cncf.io>
Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 4:53 AM
To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>; cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io>; jbeda@vmware.com <jbeda@vmware.com>
Cc: cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

Thanks for the reminder on this Joe.

The Serverless WG has already been performing that role of defining the landscape in their space, identifying gaps, writing white papers... The bit we’re missing is the liaison that we have between TOC and SIGs, which I for one think is valuable.

After seeing that “Topic 4” diagram I am open to the idea of broadening to SIG App Platform. I foresee some confusion between that and SIG App Delivery with those names, though. Naming is hard.

I would love to hear thoughts from more folks on the relationship between Serverless and the new Runtime SIG - we could certainly discuss on the next TOC call. Personally I don’t think SIG Runtime is a natural home for CloudEvents, function frameworks and so on, so I think there is a real gap.

But there is some overlap already: Virtual Kubelet falls into Runtime’s charter, but also appears on the Serverless landscape. Runtime feels like the more natural home; is Serverless really the right place for VK on the landscape?


Liz
On 31 Oct 2019, 15:11 +0000, Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@lists.cncf.io>, wrote:

Hey fellow TOC members – poke on this? Thoughts?



A couple of questions in my mind:

How does this relate to the proposed Runtime SIG? (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rftGB1Wkc_VcG9gz0072uCUHIddViGtLwaO4boEb4qA/edit)
How do we look at the differences between WGs and SIGs?

At a procedural level SIGs are rooted with the TOC and seen as an extension. WGs don’t have a formal relationship to the TOC.



Joe



From: <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 at 7:33 PM
To: "cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io" <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io>
Subject: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG



TOC members,

On a previous TOC call there was a request for feedback from the Serverless WG as to whether or not it would be a good fit for inclusion in the new AppDelivery SIG. During last week's WG call this topic was discussed and the net result is that the WG members felt that while there is some possible overlap, the scope of the WG is different enough that the SIG would not be an appropriate home for the WG. As a concrete example, it seems as though a project like CloudEvents (which came out of the WG's work) would not be in-scope for the AppDelivery SIG. With that, the WG thinks that a separate SIG might be more appropriate.

However, the creation of a Serverless SIG might be too limited in scope. One of the things that we're noticing is that the lines between CaaS, PaaS, FaaS and Serverless are getting blurry. Which means the distinction between the various platforms, or underlying technologies for each *aaS, is becoming less clear. Instead, the differences are becoming more akin to configuration settings rather than entirely distinct platform considerations. As such, the WG felt that an "AppPlatform" SIG might be more appropriate. This SIG could then focus on the underlying hosting technologies leveraged by higher-level SIGs (such as AppDelivery). It would be something along the lines of "Topic 4" in the diagram here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gMhRz4vEwiHa3uD8DqFKHGTSxrVJNgkLG2WZWvi9lXo/edit#bookmark=id.qv45kp7nb29b

We can discuss this on a future TOC call, but if the TOC is interested in this we can take the action item to write-up a formal charter to further clarify the proposal that we have in mind.


thanks
-Doug Davis/Mark Peek/Ken Owens


Re: Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

Quinton Hoole <qhoole@...>
 

I agee Liz

I think serverless app development falls under sig-apps, and serveless runtimes fall under sig-runtime.
It's pretty common for work groups to span across a few SIGs.

Q


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Liz Rice via Lists.Cncf.Io <liz=lizrice.com@...>
Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 4:53 AM
To: Doug Davis <dug@...>; cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>; jbeda@... <jbeda@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG
 
Thanks for the reminder on this Joe.

The Serverless WG has already been performing that role of defining the landscape in their space, identifying gaps, writing white papers... The bit we’re missing is the liaison that we have between TOC and SIGs, which I for one think is valuable. 

After seeing that “Topic 4” diagram I am open to the idea of broadening to SIG App Platform. I foresee some confusion between that and SIG App Delivery with those names, though. Naming is hard. 

I would love to hear thoughts from more folks on the relationship between Serverless and the new Runtime SIG - we could certainly discuss on the next TOC call. Personally I don’t think SIG Runtime is a natural home for CloudEvents, function frameworks and so on, so I think there is a real gap.  

But there is some overlap already: Virtual Kubelet falls into Runtime’s charter, but also appears on the Serverless landscape. Runtime feels like the more natural home; is Serverless really the right place for VK on the landscape?


Liz
On 31 Oct 2019, 15:11 +0000, Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...>, wrote:

Hey fellow TOC members – poke on this?  Thoughts?

 

A couple of questions in my mind:

 

Joe

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 at 7:33 PM
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

 

TOC members,

On a previous TOC call there was a request for feedback from the Serverless WG as to whether or not it would be a good fit for inclusion in the new AppDelivery SIG. During last week's WG call this topic was discussed and the net result is that the WG members felt that while there is some possible overlap, the scope of the WG is different enough that the SIG would not be an appropriate home for the WG. As a concrete example, it seems as though a project like CloudEvents (which came out of the WG's work) would not be in-scope for the AppDelivery SIG. With that, the WG thinks that a separate SIG might be more appropriate.

However, the creation of a Serverless SIG might be too limited in scope. One of the things that we're noticing is that the lines between CaaS, PaaS, FaaS and Serverless are getting blurry. Which means the distinction between the various platforms, or underlying technologies for each *aaS, is becoming less clear. Instead, the differences are becoming more akin to configuration settings rather than entirely distinct platform considerations. As such, the WG felt that an "AppPlatform" SIG might be more appropriate. This SIG could then focus on the underlying hosting technologies leveraged by higher-level SIGs (such as AppDelivery). It would be something along the lines of "Topic 4" in the diagram here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gMhRz4vEwiHa3uD8DqFKHGTSxrVJNgkLG2WZWvi9lXo/edit#bookmark=id.qv45kp7nb29b

We can discuss this on a future TOC call, but if the TOC is interested in this we can take the action item to write-up a formal charter to further clarify the proposal that we have in mind.


thanks
-Doug Davis/Mark Peek/Ken Owens


Re: Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

Liz Rice
 

Thanks for the reminder on this Joe.

The Serverless WG has already been performing that role of defining the landscape in their space, identifying gaps, writing white papers... The bit we’re missing is the liaison that we have between TOC and SIGs, which I for one think is valuable. 

After seeing that “Topic 4” diagram I am open to the idea of broadening to SIG App Platform. I foresee some confusion between that and SIG App Delivery with those names, though. Naming is hard. 

I would love to hear thoughts from more folks on the relationship between Serverless and the new Runtime SIG - we could certainly discuss on the next TOC call. Personally I don’t think SIG Runtime is a natural home for CloudEvents, function frameworks and so on, so I think there is a real gap.  

But there is some overlap already: Virtual Kubelet falls into Runtime’s charter, but also appears on the Serverless landscape. Runtime feels like the more natural home; is Serverless really the right place for VK on the landscape?


Liz

On 31 Oct 2019, 15:11 +0000, Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...>, wrote:

Hey fellow TOC members – poke on this?  Thoughts?

 

A couple of questions in my mind:

 

Joe

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 at 7:33 PM
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

 

TOC members,

On a previous TOC call there was a request for feedback from the Serverless WG as to whether or not it would be a good fit for inclusion in the new AppDelivery SIG. During last week's WG call this topic was discussed and the net result is that the WG members felt that while there is some possible overlap, the scope of the WG is different enough that the SIG would not be an appropriate home for the WG. As a concrete example, it seems as though a project like CloudEvents (which came out of the WG's work) would not be in-scope for the AppDelivery SIG. With that, the WG thinks that a separate SIG might be more appropriate.

However, the creation of a Serverless SIG might be too limited in scope. One of the things that we're noticing is that the lines between CaaS, PaaS, FaaS and Serverless are getting blurry. Which means the distinction between the various platforms, or underlying technologies for each *aaS, is becoming less clear. Instead, the differences are becoming more akin to configuration settings rather than entirely distinct platform considerations. As such, the WG felt that an "AppPlatform" SIG might be more appropriate. This SIG could then focus on the underlying hosting technologies leveraged by higher-level SIGs (such as AppDelivery). It would be something along the lines of "Topic 4" in the diagram here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gMhRz4vEwiHa3uD8DqFKHGTSxrVJNgkLG2WZWvi9lXo/edit#bookmark=id.qv45kp7nb29b

We can discuss this on a future TOC call, but if the TOC is interested in this we can take the action item to write-up a formal charter to further clarify the proposal that we have in mind.


thanks
-Doug Davis/Mark Peek/Ken Owens


Re: Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
 

Hey fellow TOC members – poke on this?  Thoughts?

 

A couple of questions in my mind:

 

Joe

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 at 7:33 PM
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

 

TOC members,

On a previous TOC call there was a request for feedback from the Serverless WG as to whether or not it would be a good fit for inclusion in the new AppDelivery SIG. During last week's WG call this topic was discussed and the net result is that the WG members felt that while there is some possible overlap, the scope of the WG is different enough that the SIG would not be an appropriate home for the WG. As a concrete example, it seems as though a project like CloudEvents (which came out of the WG's work) would not be in-scope for the AppDelivery SIG. With that, the WG thinks that a separate SIG might be more appropriate.

However, the creation of a Serverless SIG might be too limited in scope. One of the things that we're noticing is that the lines between CaaS, PaaS, FaaS and Serverless are getting blurry. Which means the distinction between the various platforms, or underlying technologies for each *aaS, is becoming less clear. Instead, the differences are becoming more akin to configuration settings rather than entirely distinct platform considerations. As such, the WG felt that an "AppPlatform" SIG might be more appropriate. This SIG could then focus on the underlying hosting technologies leveraged by higher-level SIGs (such as AppDelivery). It would be something along the lines of "Topic 4" in the diagram here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gMhRz4vEwiHa3uD8DqFKHGTSxrVJNgkLG2WZWvi9lXo/edit#bookmark=id.qv45kp7nb29b

We can discuss this on a future TOC call, but if the TOC is interested in this we can take the action item to write-up a formal charter to further clarify the proposal that we have in mind.


thanks
-Doug Davis/Mark Peek/Ken Owens


[RESULT] Jaeger graduation (APPROVED)

Chris Aniszczyk
 


Re: [VOTE] Vitess graduation

Liz Rice
 

+1 binding

Liz

On 25 Oct 2019, 09:57 +0100, Rabi, Abdel, Vodafone Group <abdel.rabi@...>, wrote:

+1 nb

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 14:44
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess graduation

 

Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff

https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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

 

--

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


Re: [VOTE] Vitess graduation

Rabi Abdel
 

+1 nb

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 14:44
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess graduation

 

Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff

https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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

 

--

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


Re: [VOTE] Vitess graduation

Leonardo Di Donato
 

+1 nb
L.


On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:22 PM Nick Chase <nchase@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding 

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 9:44 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff
https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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

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


Re: [VOTE] Vitess graduation

Nick Chase
 

+1 non-binding 


On Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 9:44 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff
https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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

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


[RESULT] CloudEvents moving to incubation (APPROVED)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The CloudEvents project has been approved to the incubation maturity level from sandbox: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/297

+1 binding TOC votes (7/9):
Brendan Burns: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3648
Matt Klein: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3651
Joe Beda: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3660
Liz Rice: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3666
Alexis Richardson: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3667
XIang Li: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3671
Jeff Brewer: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3674

+1 non-binding community votes:
Mark Peek: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3638

Thanks all for voting, we look forward to cultivating the CloudEvents community!

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


Re: [VOTE] Vitess graduation

Nicola Marco Decandia
 

+1 binding

 

Nicola Marco Decandia

Desotech S.r.l.


Re: [VOTE] Vitess graduation

Philippe Robin
 

+1 non-binding

 

Regards,

Philippe

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Chris Aniszczyk via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: 23 October 2019 14:44
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess graduation

 

Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff

https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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

 

--

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


Re: [VOTE] Vitess graduation

Brewer, Jeff
 

+1 binding

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 6:44 AM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess graduation

 

This email is from an external sender.

 

Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff

https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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

 

--

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


Re: [VOTE] Vitess graduation

Niraj Tolia
 

+1 non-binding

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 6:44 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff
https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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

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

3321 - 3340 of 7044