Date   

Re: Contour to CNCF sandbox

Matt Farina
 

Coming from someone driving a project without direct CNCF involvement getting the project to incubation took serious work and a very serious diligence.

I have done a lot of the work for Helm when it comes to CNCF processes. There has been little to no guidance or involvement (other than official level meeting criteria). You have to want it, figure it out, and work for it. The skills needed to produce good code and projects are different from this.

It would be great if there was a) better documentation and b) mentoring. For all levels of projects in the CNCF.

Just my 2 cents.

- Matt Farina

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020, at 10:11 PM, Kris Nova wrote:
I agree with Gerred on this one.

Coming from someone driving a project without direct CNCF involvement getting the project to incubation took serious work and a very serious diligence.

I know contour is an excellent solution and completely support getting into the CNCF - but we should probably try to keep the playing field as fair as possible - at the very least let’s introduce time for folks to have a chance to share their voice.


Kris Nova 
Chief Open Source Advocate 


On 9 Jan 2020, at 16:30, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:
What are the status of other Envoy-based projects in this space? With Contour asking to skip the SIG process established a few months ago for sandbox - notably recommended by those who are part of this thread - others are being asked to attain, do other ingress projects such as Ambassador have the opportunity to join the sandbox in the same way, or will they need to be part of SIG Network due diligence before becoming a topic for the TOC?

If this group is establishing rules that benefit the larger community and foundation, they should apply to everyone - no matter who proposes it for inclusion, or who tries to skip existing protocol set forth for other projects over the holidays.

On Jan 7, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

sorry, this is my mistake, I assumed sandbox for contour out of the gate

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:11 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Ah – my mistake.  I know we talked about it.  Chris added the “sandbox” label so that confused me.  I’ll fix it.

 

Agree that if we are talking incubation we should definitely have SIG-network start the process.

 

Sorry for the confusion!

 

From: Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 2:15 PM
To: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox

 

The PR lists incubation as the desired level. So that is not accurate?

 

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:02 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Hi all,

 

I know we’ve talked about not syncing on TOC meetings to get new projects in.  As things stand, we have just submitted contour as a sandbox project and there is support from Alexis and Matt and me.

 

What do we want to consider necessary before we move forward?  Do we want to have SIG-network take a look or do we want to just “make it so”?

 

Personally, I’d be cool with just getting it in but don’t want to jump the gun.

 

Joe






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


Re: Comment on Increase Sandbox requirement to three sponsors from the TOC

Matt Farina
 

I think it could be good to acknowledge the frustration. There are open sandbox proposals that are many months old (including one from January a year ago). Sandbox projects are scheduled to demo in a TOC meeting as part of their process to find sponsors. Yet, the last public TOC meeting with quorum was in October. It's been a quarter since a meeting with quorum. If a sandbox project presents what sponsors will be there to see it?

When a project comes along that gets sponsors quickly, even without a demo, it's bound to be frustrating for people who are already frustrated while trying to work through the CNCF processes to find sponsors. I would be frustrated if I were going through this.

I would like to see changes, too.

While CNCF is different from Apache, the Apache Foundation does some rather nice things to help people. They've been around longer and have had time to put time into this. For example, going through their processes and getting help through it is all documented . It would be fantastic if the process, and how to get help, were documented more clearly. It's more than process documentation.

I also wonder, what would make a good CNCF project? I'm not sure that's entirely clear to everyone. If the basics were documented it would let potential projects self filter and it would give clarity to the process in the spirit of openness. Projects proposing themselves could show how they would be a good CNCF project to make it easier for TOC members to assess.

GitHub and devstats look at how quickly a project responds to issues and PRs. Developers like to know these things about projects. If the TOC and the supporting system around sandbox projects were to get easier and more efficient for everyone, I think, it would be a good thing.

Just my 2 cents.

- Matt Farina


On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, at 4:38 AM, Alexis Richardson wrote:
Vinod

The reason I am happy to sponsor Contour is because my team has used it and think it is of a very high quality. I do not need to see a presentation to reach that decision.  Regardless of what level the project applies for. 

Your comments about the TOC members deciding to sponsor at Sandbox and then finding out the project is applying for incubation, and drawing some sinister conclusion, are mistaken and should be withdrawn. 

You make a number of other comparisons with keycloak and other projects.  These comparisons are incorrect. 

If contour is to be accepted as a project it will follow a process and, so far, it is doing so.  For example please note that TOC sponsorship provides no guarantee that a project will pass DD for incubation. In fact, at incubation level the purpose of sponsorship is to get permission to move to the DD stage. 

Alexis 




On Fri, 10 Jan 2020, 01:26 Vinod NA, <vinod@...> wrote:
I also agree with Gerred about the recent submission. Many of you may have missed it as the project got sponsored super fast. 

Every project coming to join the CNCF family should be treated fairly. The TOC should consider the fact that they are willing to donate their project to the CNCF foundation and not to other foundations. 

Quoting Chris "TOC members are expected to act in the interest of CNCF and not their employers". I also think that TOC members should act in the interest of CNCF, not in their personal or their employer's interest. The TOC membership should uphold the CNCF and TOC principles.

I have seen different projects treated differently during their submission. 

I am not against the following project joining CNCF and I believe more projects should join the CNCF family. I am just unhappy with the partiality.

For a recent submission, the TOC members got too excited and sponsored the project, without even any presentation and not completely reviewing the content of the pull request. Only after sponsoring, the TOC members have realized that the project is asking for an incubation maturity level and they thought it was a sandbox. I don't know what was the urgency to get this project sponsored, compared to the other ones which are waiting nearly a year and one even got rejected after not having a sponsor after a year. Now TOC has instructed the SIG-network to review it. I don't understand the purpose of this review. This is like a group of judges already made a judgment and then they're requesting the police officers to investigate it. 

When Keycloak requested to join as a sandbox, the TOC was concerned about the governance and the team responded with their open governance and published ( https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md ). Even though the project team has only asked for Sandbox maturity, the TOC was considering it like an Incubator/Graduation project. The project answered the questions and TOC didn't ask any further questions and didn't mention which CNCF or TOC principle Keycloak didn't meet, it was just rejected saying no "SPONSOR" after waiting a year. 

Keycloak is already used by CNCF member companies. I don't think the decision to reject the project without even accepting it in the sandbox level is in the CNCF community's best interest.

More details will be added in this GitHub issue = https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/331

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020, 10:57 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
Sorry, I am missing something - which projects are proposing to skip the process? And (bearing mind the TOC have to sponsor / vote) do you see support from TOC members for them skipping the process?

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


On 10 Jan 2020, at 03:57, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Combining a few messages here -

The motivation for the increase makes sense. From a multi-vendor control standpoint, I will move to +1 NB on this particular issue.

That said, I'm sitting on a draft of collected thoughts, of which I will refine and post tomorrow - but in short I feel like change does need to be made, especially in light of other projects that proposed in the past days to skip the process demanded of projects included in the CNCF. This felt like a very clear violation of responsibility to the members that make up the CNCF, it's governing bodies, and those rely upon their decision making processes - and it's been made clear that without someone concerned about it, existing processes are potentially too easy to short-circuit.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 10:36 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

To add a little more context...

The TOC is expanding from 9 to 11 members and a single company (or group of companies under the same umbrella) can have 2 members on it.

The current sandbox process only requires 2 TOC members to sponsor a project. This means a single company with two members is able to add any sandbox project they want.

The CNCF charter notes:

The Cloud Native Computing Foundation seeks to drive adoption of this paradigm by fostering and sustaining an ecosystem of open source, vendor-neutral projects

If the CNCF processes allows a situation for a single vendor to have the ability to add any sandbox projects they like is this enabling vendor neutrality and the charter would like?

An argument has been made it's not so the TOC sponsors should expand to 3 to require multiple organizations to be involved in sponsoring. This is what expanding to 3 TOC sponsors gives us.

Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

This must be frustrating for the people working on those projects.

I would like to see the TOC make some changes to address this problem. A clear documented processes and methodology. Something people on the projects can understand, follow, and depend on.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020, at 11:42 AM, Vinod NA wrote:
-1 NB ( I am not in favor of sponsoring concept at all )
 
I think sponsoring will lead to "King Makers" situation which is against the TOC principle.

I don’t agree that the CNCF sandbox entry barrier is low. Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

I don’t fully agree with the concept that all sandbox projects should graduate. Sandbox then won’t be the ideal name for this stage then. Ideally, all projects should graduate and the CNCF should build sustainable ecosystems for it but there are many other factors that the TOC or CNCF can't control. Projects may go to archives from any stage. The "rkt " project is an example of it.
 
I agree that the TOC review shouldn’t be a tick-the-box exercise. TOC should make the judgment based on facts, not based on what they like or dislike. A TOC member won’t necessarily get enthusiastic about a project if he/she knows very well about that project's domain and technology stack. Also, the TOC does not pick a “winning stack” as per the TOC's operating principles document.

I have opened an issue in the TOC repo with more details, feel free to comment your thoughts there.



On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 16:24 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
Hi Gerred, 

I wanted to follow up with a few thoughts on your comment here. 

Although the barrier to entry for Sandbox is intended to be low, we want to make sure that the projects that come in have a good chance of making it to incubation and graduation. Potential sponsors from the TOC should have confidence that the project is on the right path towards those criteria. It would be doing a disservice to a project if we were to accept it without that confidence. 

Acceptance to the CNCF at any level should never be just a tick-the-box exercise. The TOC should always be able to exercise their judgement and discretion. At the Sandbox level, if there aren’t enough TOC members with the confidence and enthusiasm in a project to step forward as sponsors, then it doesn’t get accepted. 

I hope that helps,
Liz

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


On 28 Dec 2019, at 06:07, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

-1 non-binding

i'm not thrilled with how the sandbox has already changed without a controlled burn rate, i disagree with this motion without other changes to the sandbox process happening. kudo has already been given -1s on sandbox inclusion based on incubating/graduating requirements in private as negative votes for inclusion -- despite communication that these weren't requirements. sandbox is either inclusive or it's not, and i'd rather inclusion at this stage, given there are no marketing expectations or official endorsement of these projects by the CNCF.

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 4:24 PM Thomas Mclennan <Thomas.mc@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding












Re: Contour to CNCF sandbox

Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
 

Hi Liz,

 

Thanks for clarifying.  This was something that I was still fuzzy on as we have been having active discussions on how to streamline the sandbox process to provide more certainty and faster results for stuff.  I wasn’t looking to have Contour do anything we wouldn’t do for other projects.  The specific thing that I think *is* a bit of a change (and correct me if I’m misremembering) is that we aren’t requiring sandbox projects to present as the schedule for the TOC meetings is introducing quite a bit of latency.

 

Also note that there are going to be some projects where we don’t have a SIG that applies yet and in that case it falls to the TOC to do things.  SIG-network is just getting booted up now and, honestly, not sure if they are ready to take on project reviews yet (I may just be unaware here).

 

In any case – this does highlight the continued need to get these new processes settled and well document so that we can execute on the plan to streamline sandbox so that folks can get answers (yes or no) more quickly.

 

Joe

 

From: Liz Rice <liz@...>
Date: Friday, January 10, 2020 at 1:25 AM
To: Gerred Dillon <hello@...>
Cc: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox

 

Glad to see we are all on the same page for Contour. 

 

More generally I think all projects should go through the SIG process for Sandbox even if there is already tentative support from the TOC: 

 

- We shouldn’t short-cut the process just because some projects are better known to some members of the TOC 

- It gives SIG members the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the project too

- It gives the SIG opportunity to compare/contrast with other projects in the space that they may be more familiar with

- At Sandbox this *should* be a lightweight and quick step for SIGs as well as for the TOC

 

With SIGs still being pretty new we have yet to prove whether we can get projects through this process in a timely fashion, but let’s give it a fair go. 

 

--

Liz Rice

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

 

 



On 10 Jan 2020, at 00:36, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

 

Thanks for the corrections - this was not clear when I replied! I don’t claim to speak for Ambassador - I was using it as an example here and would yield to them.

My concerns are assuaged by this - I appreciate your response Joe. 



On Jan 9, 2020, at 7:33 PM, Joe Beda <jbeda@...> wrote:

Hello,

 

Two corrections here:

1) contour is looking at incubation and will be working through the sig.

2) the question here is about how we are utilizing sigs for projects that already have sponsors. We've had discussions on where we are headed here and I personally didn't remember where we landed for sandbox projects with TOC support already.

 

I would expect that this would be applied evenly to all projects without special treatment for contour.

 

If ambassador is looking to join at the sandbox level let's have this discussion.

 

Joe

 


From: Gerred Dillon <hello@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 4:30:10 PM
To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Cc: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>; Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox

 

What are the status of other Envoy-based projects in this space? With Contour asking to skip the SIG process established a few months ago for sandbox - notably recommended by those who are part of this thread - others are being asked to attain, do other ingress projects such as Ambassador have the opportunity to join the sandbox in the same way, or will they need to be part of SIG Network due diligence before becoming a topic for the TOC?

 

If this group is establishing rules that benefit the larger community and foundation, they should apply to everyone - no matter who proposes it for inclusion, or who tries to skip existing protocol set forth for other projects over the holidays.



On Jan 7, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

sorry, this is my mistake, I assumed sandbox for contour out of the gate

 

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:11 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Ah – my mistake.  I know we talked about it.  Chris added the “sandbox” label so that confused me.  I’ll fix it.

 

Agree that if we are talking incubation we should definitely have SIG-network start the process.

 

Sorry for the confusion!

 

From: Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 2:15 PM
To: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox

 

The PR lists incubation as the desired level. So that is not accurate?

 

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:02 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Hi all,

 

I know we’ve talked about not syncing on TOC meetings to get new projects in.  As things stand, we have just submitted contour as a sandbox project and there is support from Alexis and Matt and me.

 

What do we want to consider necessary before we move forward?  Do we want to have SIG-network take a look or do we want to just “make it so”?

 

Personally, I’d be cool with just getting it in but don’t want to jump the gun.

 

Joe

 

 


 

--

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

 


Re: Contour to CNCF sandbox

Kris Nova <kris.nova@...>
 

I agree with Gerred on this one.

Coming from someone driving a project without direct CNCF involvement getting the project to incubation took serious work and a very serious diligence.

I know contour is an excellent solution and completely support getting into the CNCF - but we should probably try to keep the playing field as fair as possible - at the very least let’s introduce time for folks to have a chance to share their voice.

Kris Nova 
Chief Open Source Advocate 


On 9 Jan 2020, at 16:30, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

What are the status of other Envoy-based projects in this space? With Contour asking to skip the SIG process established a few months ago for sandbox - notably recommended by those who are part of this thread - others are being asked to attain, do other ingress projects such as Ambassador have the opportunity to join the sandbox in the same way, or will they need to be part of SIG Network due diligence before becoming a topic for the TOC?

If this group is establishing rules that benefit the larger community and foundation, they should apply to everyone - no matter who proposes it for inclusion, or who tries to skip existing protocol set forth for other projects over the holidays.

On Jan 7, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:


sorry, this is my mistake, I assumed sandbox for contour out of the gate

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:11 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Ah – my mistake.  I know we talked about it.  Chris added the “sandbox” label so that confused me.  I’ll fix it.

 

Agree that if we are talking incubation we should definitely have SIG-network start the process.

 

Sorry for the confusion!

 

From: Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 2:15 PM
To: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox

 

The PR lists incubation as the desired level. So that is not accurate?

 

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:02 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Hi all,

 

I know we’ve talked about not syncing on TOC meetings to get new projects in.  As things stand, we have just submitted contour as a sandbox project and there is support from Alexis and Matt and me.

 

What do we want to consider necessary before we move forward?  Do we want to have SIG-network take a look or do we want to just “make it so”?

 

Personally, I’d be cool with just getting it in but don’t want to jump the gun.

 

Joe



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


Re: Contour to CNCF sandbox

Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
 

Hello,

Two corrections here:
1) contour is looking at incubation and will be working through the sig.
2) the question here is about how we are utilizing sigs for projects that already have sponsors. We've had discussions on where we are headed here and I personally didn't remember where we landed for sandbox projects with TOC support already.

I would expect that this would be applied evenly to all projects without special treatment for contour.

If ambassador is looking to join at the sandbox level let's have this discussion.

Joe


From: Gerred Dillon <hello@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 4:30:10 PM
To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Cc: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>; Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox
 
What are the status of other Envoy-based projects in this space? With Contour asking to skip the SIG process established a few months ago for sandbox - notably recommended by those who are part of this thread - others are being asked to attain, do other ingress projects such as Ambassador have the opportunity to join the sandbox in the same way, or will they need to be part of SIG Network due diligence before becoming a topic for the TOC?

If this group is establishing rules that benefit the larger community and foundation, they should apply to everyone - no matter who proposes it for inclusion, or who tries to skip existing protocol set forth for other projects over the holidays.

On Jan 7, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:


sorry, this is my mistake, I assumed sandbox for contour out of the gate

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:11 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Ah – my mistake.  I know we talked about it.  Chris added the “sandbox” label so that confused me.  I’ll fix it.

 

Agree that if we are talking incubation we should definitely have SIG-network start the process.

 

Sorry for the confusion!

 

From: Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 2:15 PM
To: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox

 

The PR lists incubation as the desired level. So that is not accurate?

 

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:02 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Hi all,

 

I know we’ve talked about not syncing on TOC meetings to get new projects in.  As things stand, we have just submitted contour as a sandbox project and there is support from Alexis and Matt and me.

 

What do we want to consider necessary before we move forward?  Do we want to have SIG-network take a look or do we want to just “make it so”?

 

Personally, I’d be cool with just getting it in but don’t want to jump the gun.

 

Joe



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


Re: Comment on Increase Sandbox requirement to three sponsors from the TOC

alexis richardson
 

Vinod

The reason I am happy to sponsor Contour is because my team has used it and think it is of a very high quality. I do not need to see a presentation to reach that decision.  Regardless of what level the project applies for. 

Your comments about the TOC members deciding to sponsor at Sandbox and then finding out the project is applying for incubation, and drawing some sinister conclusion, are mistaken and should be withdrawn. 

You make a number of other comparisons with keycloak and other projects.  These comparisons are incorrect. 

If contour is to be accepted as a project it will follow a process and, so far, it is doing so.  For example please note that TOC sponsorship provides no guarantee that a project will pass DD for incubation. In fact, at incubation level the purpose of sponsorship is to get permission to move to the DD stage. 

Alexis 




On Fri, 10 Jan 2020, 01:26 Vinod NA, <vinod@...> wrote:
I also agree with Gerred about the recent submission. Many of you may have missed it as the project got sponsored super fast. 

Every project coming to join the CNCF family should be treated fairly. The TOC should consider the fact that they are willing to donate their project to the CNCF foundation and not to other foundations. 

Quoting Chris "TOC members are expected to act in the interest of CNCF and not their employers". I also think that TOC members should act in the interest of CNCF, not in their personal or their employer's interest. The TOC membership should uphold the CNCF and TOC principles.

I have seen different projects treated differently during their submission. 

I am not against the following project joining CNCF and I believe more projects should join the CNCF family. I am just unhappy with the partiality.

For a recent submission, the TOC members got too excited and sponsored the project, without even any presentation and not completely reviewing the content of the pull request. Only after sponsoring, the TOC members have realized that the project is asking for an incubation maturity level and they thought it was a sandbox. I don't know what was the urgency to get this project sponsored, compared to the other ones which are waiting nearly a year and one even got rejected after not having a sponsor after a year. Now TOC has instructed the SIG-network to review it. I don't understand the purpose of this review. This is like a group of judges already made a judgment and then they're requesting the police officers to investigate it. 

When Keycloak requested to join as a sandbox, the TOC was concerned about the governance and the team responded with their open governance and published ( https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md ). Even though the project team has only asked for Sandbox maturity, the TOC was considering it like an Incubator/Graduation project. The project answered the questions and TOC didn't ask any further questions and didn't mention which CNCF or TOC principle Keycloak didn't meet, it was just rejected saying no "SPONSOR" after waiting a year. 

Keycloak is already used by CNCF member companies. I don't think the decision to reject the project without even accepting it in the sandbox level is in the CNCF community's best interest.

More details will be added in this GitHub issue = https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/331

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020, 10:57 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
Sorry, I am missing something - which projects are proposing to skip the process? And (bearing mind the TOC have to sponsor / vote) do you see support from TOC members for them skipping the process?

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



On 10 Jan 2020, at 03:57, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Combining a few messages here -

The motivation for the increase makes sense. From a multi-vendor control standpoint, I will move to +1 NB on this particular issue.

That said, I'm sitting on a draft of collected thoughts, of which I will refine and post tomorrow - but in short I feel like change does need to be made, especially in light of other projects that proposed in the past days to skip the process demanded of projects included in the CNCF. This felt like a very clear violation of responsibility to the members that make up the CNCF, it's governing bodies, and those rely upon their decision making processes - and it's been made clear that without someone concerned about it, existing processes are potentially too easy to short-circuit.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 10:36 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
To add a little more context...

The TOC is expanding from 9 to 11 members and a single company (or group of companies under the same umbrella) can have 2 members on it.

The current sandbox process only requires 2 TOC members to sponsor a project. This means a single company with two members is able to add any sandbox project they want.

The CNCF charter notes:

The Cloud Native Computing Foundation seeks to drive adoption of this paradigm by fostering and sustaining an ecosystem of open source, vendor-neutral projects

If the CNCF processes allows a situation for a single vendor to have the ability to add any sandbox projects they like is this enabling vendor neutrality and the charter would like?

An argument has been made it's not so the TOC sponsors should expand to 3 to require multiple organizations to be involved in sponsoring. This is what expanding to 3 TOC sponsors gives us.

Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

This must be frustrating for the people working on those projects.

I would like to see the TOC make some changes to address this problem. A clear documented processes and methodology. Something people on the projects can understand, follow, and depend on.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020, at 11:42 AM, Vinod NA wrote:
-1 NB ( I am not in favor of sponsoring concept at all )
 
I think sponsoring will lead to "King Makers" situation which is against the TOC principle.

I don’t agree that the CNCF sandbox entry barrier is low. Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

I don’t fully agree with the concept that all sandbox projects should graduate. Sandbox then won’t be the ideal name for this stage then. Ideally, all projects should graduate and the CNCF should build sustainable ecosystems for it but there are many other factors that the TOC or CNCF can't control. Projects may go to archives from any stage. The "rkt " project is an example of it.
 
I agree that the TOC review shouldn’t be a tick-the-box exercise. TOC should make the judgment based on facts, not based on what they like or dislike. A TOC member won’t necessarily get enthusiastic about a project if he/she knows very well about that project's domain and technology stack. Also, the TOC does not pick a “winning stack” as per the TOC's operating principles document.

I have opened an issue in the TOC repo with more details, feel free to comment your thoughts there.



On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 16:24 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
Hi Gerred, 

I wanted to follow up with a few thoughts on your comment here. 

Although the barrier to entry for Sandbox is intended to be low, we want to make sure that the projects that come in have a good chance of making it to incubation and graduation. Potential sponsors from the TOC should have confidence that the project is on the right path towards those criteria. It would be doing a disservice to a project if we were to accept it without that confidence. 

Acceptance to the CNCF at any level should never be just a tick-the-box exercise. The TOC should always be able to exercise their judgement and discretion. At the Sandbox level, if there aren’t enough TOC members with the confidence and enthusiasm in a project to step forward as sponsors, then it doesn’t get accepted. 

I hope that helps,
Liz

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


On 28 Dec 2019, at 06:07, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

-1 non-binding

i'm not thrilled with how the sandbox has already changed without a controlled burn rate, i disagree with this motion without other changes to the sandbox process happening. kudo has already been given -1s on sandbox inclusion based on incubating/graduating requirements in private as negative votes for inclusion -- despite communication that these weren't requirements. sandbox is either inclusive or it's not, and i'd rather inclusion at this stage, given there are no marketing expectations or official endorsement of these projects by the CNCF.

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 4:24 PM Thomas Mclennan <Thomas.mc@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding










Re: Comment on Increase Sandbox requirement to three sponsors from the TOC

Vinod
 

I also agree with Gerred about the recent submission. Many of you may have missed it as the project got sponsored super fast. 

Every project coming to join the CNCF family should be treated fairly. The TOC should consider the fact that they are willing to donate their project to the CNCF foundation and not to other foundations. 

Quoting Chris "TOC members are expected to act in the interest of CNCF and not their employers". I also think that TOC members should act in the interest of CNCF, not in their personal or their employer's interest. The TOC membership should uphold the CNCF and TOC principles.

I have seen different projects treated differently during their submission. 

I am not against the following project joining CNCF and I believe more projects should join the CNCF family. I am just unhappy with the partiality.

For a recent submission, the TOC members got too excited and sponsored the project, without even any presentation and not completely reviewing the content of the pull request. Only after sponsoring, the TOC members have realized that the project is asking for an incubation maturity level and they thought it was a sandbox. I don't know what was the urgency to get this project sponsored, compared to the other ones which are waiting nearly a year and one even got rejected after not having a sponsor after a year. Now TOC has instructed the SIG-network to review it. I don't understand the purpose of this review. This is like a group of judges already made a judgment and then they're requesting the police officers to investigate it. 

When Keycloak requested to join as a sandbox, the TOC was concerned about the governance and the team responded with their open governance and published ( https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md ). Even though the project team has only asked for Sandbox maturity, the TOC was considering it like an Incubator/Graduation project. The project answered the questions and TOC didn't ask any further questions and didn't mention which CNCF or TOC principle Keycloak didn't meet, it was just rejected saying no "SPONSOR" after waiting a year. 

Keycloak is already used by CNCF member companies. I don't think the decision to reject the project without even accepting it in the sandbox level is in the CNCF community's best interest.

More details will be added in this GitHub issue = https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/331


On Fri, 10 Jan 2020, 10:57 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
Sorry, I am missing something - which projects are proposing to skip the process? And (bearing mind the TOC have to sponsor / vote) do you see support from TOC members for them skipping the process?

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



On 10 Jan 2020, at 03:57, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Combining a few messages here -

The motivation for the increase makes sense. From a multi-vendor control standpoint, I will move to +1 NB on this particular issue.

That said, I'm sitting on a draft of collected thoughts, of which I will refine and post tomorrow - but in short I feel like change does need to be made, especially in light of other projects that proposed in the past days to skip the process demanded of projects included in the CNCF. This felt like a very clear violation of responsibility to the members that make up the CNCF, it's governing bodies, and those rely upon their decision making processes - and it's been made clear that without someone concerned about it, existing processes are potentially too easy to short-circuit.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 10:36 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
To add a little more context...

The TOC is expanding from 9 to 11 members and a single company (or group of companies under the same umbrella) can have 2 members on it.

The current sandbox process only requires 2 TOC members to sponsor a project. This means a single company with two members is able to add any sandbox project they want.

The CNCF charter notes:

The Cloud Native Computing Foundation seeks to drive adoption of this paradigm by fostering and sustaining an ecosystem of open source, vendor-neutral projects

If the CNCF processes allows a situation for a single vendor to have the ability to add any sandbox projects they like is this enabling vendor neutrality and the charter would like?

An argument has been made it's not so the TOC sponsors should expand to 3 to require multiple organizations to be involved in sponsoring. This is what expanding to 3 TOC sponsors gives us.

Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

This must be frustrating for the people working on those projects.

I would like to see the TOC make some changes to address this problem. A clear documented processes and methodology. Something people on the projects can understand, follow, and depend on.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020, at 11:42 AM, Vinod NA wrote:
-1 NB ( I am not in favor of sponsoring concept at all )
 
I think sponsoring will lead to "King Makers" situation which is against the TOC principle.

I don’t agree that the CNCF sandbox entry barrier is low. Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

I don’t fully agree with the concept that all sandbox projects should graduate. Sandbox then won’t be the ideal name for this stage then. Ideally, all projects should graduate and the CNCF should build sustainable ecosystems for it but there are many other factors that the TOC or CNCF can't control. Projects may go to archives from any stage. The "rkt " project is an example of it.
 
I agree that the TOC review shouldn’t be a tick-the-box exercise. TOC should make the judgment based on facts, not based on what they like or dislike. A TOC member won’t necessarily get enthusiastic about a project if he/she knows very well about that project's domain and technology stack. Also, the TOC does not pick a “winning stack” as per the TOC's operating principles document.

I have opened an issue in the TOC repo with more details, feel free to comment your thoughts there.



On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 16:24 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
Hi Gerred, 

I wanted to follow up with a few thoughts on your comment here. 

Although the barrier to entry for Sandbox is intended to be low, we want to make sure that the projects that come in have a good chance of making it to incubation and graduation. Potential sponsors from the TOC should have confidence that the project is on the right path towards those criteria. It would be doing a disservice to a project if we were to accept it without that confidence. 

Acceptance to the CNCF at any level should never be just a tick-the-box exercise. The TOC should always be able to exercise their judgement and discretion. At the Sandbox level, if there aren’t enough TOC members with the confidence and enthusiasm in a project to step forward as sponsors, then it doesn’t get accepted. 

I hope that helps,
Liz

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


On 28 Dec 2019, at 06:07, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

-1 non-binding

i'm not thrilled with how the sandbox has already changed without a controlled burn rate, i disagree with this motion without other changes to the sandbox process happening. kudo has already been given -1s on sandbox inclusion based on incubating/graduating requirements in private as negative votes for inclusion -- despite communication that these weren't requirements. sandbox is either inclusive or it's not, and i'd rather inclusion at this stage, given there are no marketing expectations or official endorsement of these projects by the CNCF.

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 4:24 PM Thomas Mclennan <Thomas.mc@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding










Re: Contour to CNCF sandbox

Liz Rice
 

Glad to see we are all on the same page for Contour. 

More generally I think all projects should go through the SIG process for Sandbox even if there is already tentative support from the TOC: 

- We shouldn’t short-cut the process just because some projects are better known to some members of the TOC 
- It gives SIG members the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the project too
- It gives the SIG opportunity to compare/contrast with other projects in the space that they may be more familiar with
- At Sandbox this *should* be a lightweight and quick step for SIGs as well as for the TOC

With SIGs still being pretty new we have yet to prove whether we can get projects through this process in a timely fashion, but let’s give it a fair go. 

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



On 10 Jan 2020, at 00:36, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Thanks for the corrections - this was not clear when I replied! I don’t claim to speak for Ambassador - I was using it as an example here and would yield to them.

My concerns are assuaged by this - I appreciate your response Joe. 

On Jan 9, 2020, at 7:33 PM, Joe Beda <jbeda@...> wrote:


Hello,

Two corrections here:
1) contour is looking at incubation and will be working through the sig.
2) the question here is about how we are utilizing sigs for projects that already have sponsors. We've had discussions on where we are headed here and I personally didn't remember where we landed for sandbox projects with TOC support already.

I would expect that this would be applied evenly to all projects without special treatment for contour.

If ambassador is looking to join at the sandbox level let's have this discussion.

Joe


From: Gerred Dillon <hello@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 4:30:10 PM
To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Cc: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>; Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox
 
What are the status of other Envoy-based projects in this space? With Contour asking to skip the SIG process established a few months ago for sandbox - notably recommended by those who are part of this thread - others are being asked to attain, do other ingress projects such as Ambassador have the opportunity to join the sandbox in the same way, or will they need to be part of SIG Network due diligence before becoming a topic for the TOC?

If this group is establishing rules that benefit the larger community and foundation, they should apply to everyone - no matter who proposes it for inclusion, or who tries to skip existing protocol set forth for other projects over the holidays.

On Jan 7, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:


sorry, this is my mistake, I assumed sandbox for contour out of the gate

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:11 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Ah – my mistake.  I know we talked about it.  Chris added the “sandbox” label so that confused me.  I’ll fix it.

 

Agree that if we are talking incubation we should definitely have SIG-network start the process.

 

Sorry for the confusion!

 

From: Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 2:15 PM
To: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox

 

The PR lists incubation as the desired level. So that is not accurate?

 

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:02 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Hi all,

 

I know we’ve talked about not syncing on TOC meetings to get new projects in.  As things stand, we have just submitted contour as a sandbox project and there is support from Alexis and Matt and me.

 

What do we want to consider necessary before we move forward?  Do we want to have SIG-network take a look or do we want to just “make it so”?

 

Personally, I’d be cool with just getting it in but don’t want to jump the gun.

 

Joe





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


Re: Comment on Increase Sandbox requirement to three sponsors from the TOC

Liz Rice
 

Oh I see the conversation you mean, about Contour. I’ll reply on that thread. 

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



On 10 Jan 2020, at 08:57, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Sorry, I am missing something - which projects are proposing to skip the process? And (bearing mind the TOC have to sponsor / vote) do you see support from TOC members for them skipping the process?

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



On 10 Jan 2020, at 03:57, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Combining a few messages here -

The motivation for the increase makes sense. From a multi-vendor control standpoint, I will move to +1 NB on this particular issue.

That said, I'm sitting on a draft of collected thoughts, of which I will refine and post tomorrow - but in short I feel like change does need to be made, especially in light of other projects that proposed in the past days to skip the process demanded of projects included in the CNCF. This felt like a very clear violation of responsibility to the members that make up the CNCF, it's governing bodies, and those rely upon their decision making processes - and it's been made clear that without someone concerned about it, existing processes are potentially too easy to short-circuit.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 10:36 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
To add a little more context...

The TOC is expanding from 9 to 11 members and a single company (or group of companies under the same umbrella) can have 2 members on it.

The current sandbox process only requires 2 TOC members to sponsor a project. This means a single company with two members is able to add any sandbox project they want.

The CNCF charter notes:

The Cloud Native Computing Foundation seeks to drive adoption of this paradigm by fostering and sustaining an ecosystem of open source, vendor-neutral projects

If the CNCF processes allows a situation for a single vendor to have the ability to add any sandbox projects they like is this enabling vendor neutrality and the charter would like?

An argument has been made it's not so the TOC sponsors should expand to 3 to require multiple organizations to be involved in sponsoring. This is what expanding to 3 TOC sponsors gives us.

Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

This must be frustrating for the people working on those projects.

I would like to see the TOC make some changes to address this problem. A clear documented processes and methodology. Something people on the projects can understand, follow, and depend on.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020, at 11:42 AM, Vinod NA wrote:
-1 NB ( I am not in favor of sponsoring concept at all )
 
I think sponsoring will lead to "King Makers" situation which is against the TOC principle.

I don’t agree that the CNCF sandbox entry barrier is low. Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

I don’t fully agree with the concept that all sandbox projects should graduate. Sandbox then won’t be the ideal name for this stage then. Ideally, all projects should graduate and the CNCF should build sustainable ecosystems for it but there are many other factors that the TOC or CNCF can't control. Projects may go to archives from any stage. The "rkt " project is an example of it.
 
I agree that the TOC review shouldn’t be a tick-the-box exercise. TOC should make the judgment based on facts, not based on what they like or dislike. A TOC member won’t necessarily get enthusiastic about a project if he/she knows very well about that project's domain and technology stack. Also, the TOC does not pick a “winning stack” as per the TOC's operating principles document.

I have opened an issue in the TOC repo with more details, feel free to comment your thoughts there.



On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 16:24 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
Hi Gerred, 

I wanted to follow up with a few thoughts on your comment here. 

Although the barrier to entry for Sandbox is intended to be low, we want to make sure that the projects that come in have a good chance of making it to incubation and graduation. Potential sponsors from the TOC should have confidence that the project is on the right path towards those criteria. It would be doing a disservice to a project if we were to accept it without that confidence. 

Acceptance to the CNCF at any level should never be just a tick-the-box exercise. The TOC should always be able to exercise their judgement and discretion. At the Sandbox level, if there aren’t enough TOC members with the confidence and enthusiasm in a project to step forward as sponsors, then it doesn’t get accepted. 

I hope that helps,
Liz

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


On 28 Dec 2019, at 06:07, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

-1 non-binding

i'm not thrilled with how the sandbox has already changed without a controlled burn rate, i disagree with this motion without other changes to the sandbox process happening. kudo has already been given -1s on sandbox inclusion based on incubating/graduating requirements in private as negative votes for inclusion -- despite communication that these weren't requirements. sandbox is either inclusive or it's not, and i'd rather inclusion at this stage, given there are no marketing expectations or official endorsement of these projects by the CNCF.

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 4:24 PM Thomas Mclennan <Thomas.mc@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding










Re: Comment on Increase Sandbox requirement to three sponsors from the TOC

Liz Rice
 

Sorry, I am missing something - which projects are proposing to skip the process? And (bearing mind the TOC have to sponsor / vote) do you see support from TOC members for them skipping the process?

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



On 10 Jan 2020, at 03:57, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Combining a few messages here -

The motivation for the increase makes sense. From a multi-vendor control standpoint, I will move to +1 NB on this particular issue.

That said, I'm sitting on a draft of collected thoughts, of which I will refine and post tomorrow - but in short I feel like change does need to be made, especially in light of other projects that proposed in the past days to skip the process demanded of projects included in the CNCF. This felt like a very clear violation of responsibility to the members that make up the CNCF, it's governing bodies, and those rely upon their decision making processes - and it's been made clear that without someone concerned about it, existing processes are potentially too easy to short-circuit.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 10:36 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
To add a little more context...

The TOC is expanding from 9 to 11 members and a single company (or group of companies under the same umbrella) can have 2 members on it.

The current sandbox process only requires 2 TOC members to sponsor a project. This means a single company with two members is able to add any sandbox project they want.

The CNCF charter notes:

The Cloud Native Computing Foundation seeks to drive adoption of this paradigm by fostering and sustaining an ecosystem of open source, vendor-neutral projects

If the CNCF processes allows a situation for a single vendor to have the ability to add any sandbox projects they like is this enabling vendor neutrality and the charter would like?

An argument has been made it's not so the TOC sponsors should expand to 3 to require multiple organizations to be involved in sponsoring. This is what expanding to 3 TOC sponsors gives us.

Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

This must be frustrating for the people working on those projects.

I would like to see the TOC make some changes to address this problem. A clear documented processes and methodology. Something people on the projects can understand, follow, and depend on.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020, at 11:42 AM, Vinod NA wrote:
-1 NB ( I am not in favor of sponsoring concept at all )
 
I think sponsoring will lead to "King Makers" situation which is against the TOC principle.

I don’t agree that the CNCF sandbox entry barrier is low. Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

I don’t fully agree with the concept that all sandbox projects should graduate. Sandbox then won’t be the ideal name for this stage then. Ideally, all projects should graduate and the CNCF should build sustainable ecosystems for it but there are many other factors that the TOC or CNCF can't control. Projects may go to archives from any stage. The "rkt " project is an example of it.
 
I agree that the TOC review shouldn’t be a tick-the-box exercise. TOC should make the judgment based on facts, not based on what they like or dislike. A TOC member won’t necessarily get enthusiastic about a project if he/she knows very well about that project's domain and technology stack. Also, the TOC does not pick a “winning stack” as per the TOC's operating principles document.

I have opened an issue in the TOC repo with more details, feel free to comment your thoughts there.



On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 16:24 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
Hi Gerred, 

I wanted to follow up with a few thoughts on your comment here. 

Although the barrier to entry for Sandbox is intended to be low, we want to make sure that the projects that come in have a good chance of making it to incubation and graduation. Potential sponsors from the TOC should have confidence that the project is on the right path towards those criteria. It would be doing a disservice to a project if we were to accept it without that confidence. 

Acceptance to the CNCF at any level should never be just a tick-the-box exercise. The TOC should always be able to exercise their judgement and discretion. At the Sandbox level, if there aren’t enough TOC members with the confidence and enthusiasm in a project to step forward as sponsors, then it doesn’t get accepted. 

I hope that helps,
Liz

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


On 28 Dec 2019, at 06:07, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

-1 non-binding

i'm not thrilled with how the sandbox has already changed without a controlled burn rate, i disagree with this motion without other changes to the sandbox process happening. kudo has already been given -1s on sandbox inclusion based on incubating/graduating requirements in private as negative votes for inclusion -- despite communication that these weren't requirements. sandbox is either inclusive or it's not, and i'd rather inclusion at this stage, given there are no marketing expectations or official endorsement of these projects by the CNCF.

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 4:24 PM Thomas Mclennan <Thomas.mc@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding










Re: Comment on Increase Sandbox requirement to three sponsors from the TOC

Gerred Dillon
 

Combining a few messages here -

The motivation for the increase makes sense. From a multi-vendor control standpoint, I will move to +1 NB on this particular issue.

That said, I'm sitting on a draft of collected thoughts, of which I will refine and post tomorrow - but in short I feel like change does need to be made, especially in light of other projects that proposed in the past days to skip the process demanded of projects included in the CNCF. This felt like a very clear violation of responsibility to the members that make up the CNCF, it's governing bodies, and those rely upon their decision making processes - and it's been made clear that without someone concerned about it, existing processes are potentially too easy to short-circuit.


On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 10:36 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
To add a little more context...

The TOC is expanding from 9 to 11 members and a single company (or group of companies under the same umbrella) can have 2 members on it.

The current sandbox process only requires 2 TOC members to sponsor a project. This means a single company with two members is able to add any sandbox project they want.

The CNCF charter notes:

The Cloud Native Computing Foundation seeks to drive adoption of this paradigm by fostering and sustaining an ecosystem of open source, vendor-neutral projects

If the CNCF processes allows a situation for a single vendor to have the ability to add any sandbox projects they like is this enabling vendor neutrality and the charter would like?

An argument has been made it's not so the TOC sponsors should expand to 3 to require multiple organizations to be involved in sponsoring. This is what expanding to 3 TOC sponsors gives us.

Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

This must be frustrating for the people working on those projects.

I would like to see the TOC make some changes to address this problem. A clear documented processes and methodology. Something people on the projects can understand, follow, and depend on.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020, at 11:42 AM, Vinod NA wrote:
-1 NB ( I am not in favor of sponsoring concept at all )
 
I think sponsoring will lead to "King Makers" situation which is against the TOC principle.

I don’t agree that the CNCF sandbox entry barrier is low. Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

I don’t fully agree with the concept that all sandbox projects should graduate. Sandbox then won’t be the ideal name for this stage then. Ideally, all projects should graduate and the CNCF should build sustainable ecosystems for it but there are many other factors that the TOC or CNCF can't control. Projects may go to archives from any stage. The "rkt " project is an example of it.
 
I agree that the TOC review shouldn’t be a tick-the-box exercise. TOC should make the judgment based on facts, not based on what they like or dislike. A TOC member won’t necessarily get enthusiastic about a project if he/she knows very well about that project's domain and technology stack. Also, the TOC does not pick a “winning stack” as per the TOC's operating principles document.

I have opened an issue in the TOC repo with more details, feel free to comment your thoughts there.



On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 16:24 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
Hi Gerred, 

I wanted to follow up with a few thoughts on your comment here. 

Although the barrier to entry for Sandbox is intended to be low, we want to make sure that the projects that come in have a good chance of making it to incubation and graduation. Potential sponsors from the TOC should have confidence that the project is on the right path towards those criteria. It would be doing a disservice to a project if we were to accept it without that confidence. 

Acceptance to the CNCF at any level should never be just a tick-the-box exercise. The TOC should always be able to exercise their judgement and discretion. At the Sandbox level, if there aren’t enough TOC members with the confidence and enthusiasm in a project to step forward as sponsors, then it doesn’t get accepted. 

I hope that helps,
Liz

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


On 28 Dec 2019, at 06:07, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

-1 non-binding

i'm not thrilled with how the sandbox has already changed without a controlled burn rate, i disagree with this motion without other changes to the sandbox process happening. kudo has already been given -1s on sandbox inclusion based on incubating/graduating requirements in private as negative votes for inclusion -- despite communication that these weren't requirements. sandbox is either inclusive or it's not, and i'd rather inclusion at this stage, given there are no marketing expectations or official endorsement of these projects by the CNCF.

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 4:24 PM Thomas Mclennan <Thomas.mc@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding







Re: Comment on Increase Sandbox requirement to three sponsors from the TOC

Matt Farina
 

To add a little more context...

The TOC is expanding from 9 to 11 members and a single company (or group of companies under the same umbrella) can have 2 members on it.

The current sandbox process only requires 2 TOC members to sponsor a project. This means a single company with two members is able to add any sandbox project they want.

The CNCF charter notes:

The Cloud Native Computing Foundation seeks to drive adoption of this paradigm by fostering and sustaining an ecosystem of open source, vendor-neutral projects

If the CNCF processes allows a situation for a single vendor to have the ability to add any sandbox projects they like is this enabling vendor neutrality and the charter would like?

An argument has been made it's not so the TOC sponsors should expand to 3 to require multiple organizations to be involved in sponsoring. This is what expanding to 3 TOC sponsors gives us.

Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

This must be frustrating for the people working on those projects.

I would like to see the TOC make some changes to address this problem. A clear documented processes and methodology. Something people on the projects can understand, follow, and depend on.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020, at 11:42 AM, Vinod NA wrote:
-1 NB ( I am not in favor of sponsoring concept at all )
 
I think sponsoring will lead to "King Makers" situation which is against the TOC principle.

I don’t agree that the CNCF sandbox entry barrier is low. Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

I don’t fully agree with the concept that all sandbox projects should graduate. Sandbox then won’t be the ideal name for this stage then. Ideally, all projects should graduate and the CNCF should build sustainable ecosystems for it but there are many other factors that the TOC or CNCF can't control. Projects may go to archives from any stage. The "rkt " project is an example of it.
 
I agree that the TOC review shouldn’t be a tick-the-box exercise. TOC should make the judgment based on facts, not based on what they like or dislike. A TOC member won’t necessarily get enthusiastic about a project if he/she knows very well about that project's domain and technology stack. Also, the TOC does not pick a “winning stack” as per the TOC's operating principles document.

I have opened an issue in the TOC repo with more details, feel free to comment your thoughts there.



On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 16:24 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
Hi Gerred, 

I wanted to follow up with a few thoughts on your comment here. 

Although the barrier to entry for Sandbox is intended to be low, we want to make sure that the projects that come in have a good chance of making it to incubation and graduation. Potential sponsors from the TOC should have confidence that the project is on the right path towards those criteria. It would be doing a disservice to a project if we were to accept it without that confidence. 

Acceptance to the CNCF at any level should never be just a tick-the-box exercise. The TOC should always be able to exercise their judgement and discretion. At the Sandbox level, if there aren’t enough TOC members with the confidence and enthusiasm in a project to step forward as sponsors, then it doesn’t get accepted. 

I hope that helps,
Liz

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


On 28 Dec 2019, at 06:07, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

-1 non-binding

i'm not thrilled with how the sandbox has already changed without a controlled burn rate, i disagree with this motion without other changes to the sandbox process happening. kudo has already been given -1s on sandbox inclusion based on incubating/graduating requirements in private as negative votes for inclusion -- despite communication that these weren't requirements. sandbox is either inclusive or it's not, and i'd rather inclusion at this stage, given there are no marketing expectations or official endorsement of these projects by the CNCF.

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 4:24 PM Thomas Mclennan <Thomas.mc@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding







Re: Contour to CNCF sandbox

Gerred Dillon
 

Thanks for the corrections - this was not clear when I replied! I don’t claim to speak for Ambassador - I was using it as an example here and would yield to them.

My concerns are assuaged by this - I appreciate your response Joe. 

On Jan 9, 2020, at 7:33 PM, Joe Beda <jbeda@...> wrote:


Hello,

Two corrections here:
1) contour is looking at incubation and will be working through the sig.
2) the question here is about how we are utilizing sigs for projects that already have sponsors. We've had discussions on where we are headed here and I personally didn't remember where we landed for sandbox projects with TOC support already.

I would expect that this would be applied evenly to all projects without special treatment for contour.

If ambassador is looking to join at the sandbox level let's have this discussion.

Joe


From: Gerred Dillon <hello@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 4:30:10 PM
To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Cc: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>; Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox
 
What are the status of other Envoy-based projects in this space? With Contour asking to skip the SIG process established a few months ago for sandbox - notably recommended by those who are part of this thread - others are being asked to attain, do other ingress projects such as Ambassador have the opportunity to join the sandbox in the same way, or will they need to be part of SIG Network due diligence before becoming a topic for the TOC?

If this group is establishing rules that benefit the larger community and foundation, they should apply to everyone - no matter who proposes it for inclusion, or who tries to skip existing protocol set forth for other projects over the holidays.

On Jan 7, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:


sorry, this is my mistake, I assumed sandbox for contour out of the gate

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:11 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Ah – my mistake.  I know we talked about it.  Chris added the “sandbox” label so that confused me.  I’ll fix it.

 

Agree that if we are talking incubation we should definitely have SIG-network start the process.

 

Sorry for the confusion!

 

From: Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 2:15 PM
To: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox

 

The PR lists incubation as the desired level. So that is not accurate?

 

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:02 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Hi all,

 

I know we’ve talked about not syncing on TOC meetings to get new projects in.  As things stand, we have just submitted contour as a sandbox project and there is support from Alexis and Matt and me.

 

What do we want to consider necessary before we move forward?  Do we want to have SIG-network take a look or do we want to just “make it so”?

 

Personally, I’d be cool with just getting it in but don’t want to jump the gun.

 

Joe



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


Re: Contour to CNCF sandbox

Gerred Dillon
 

What are the status of other Envoy-based projects in this space? With Contour asking to skip the SIG process established a few months ago for sandbox - notably recommended by those who are part of this thread - others are being asked to attain, do other ingress projects such as Ambassador have the opportunity to join the sandbox in the same way, or will they need to be part of SIG Network due diligence before becoming a topic for the TOC?

If this group is establishing rules that benefit the larger community and foundation, they should apply to everyone - no matter who proposes it for inclusion, or who tries to skip existing protocol set forth for other projects over the holidays.

On Jan 7, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:


sorry, this is my mistake, I assumed sandbox for contour out of the gate

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:11 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Ah – my mistake.  I know we talked about it.  Chris added the “sandbox” label so that confused me.  I’ll fix it.

 

Agree that if we are talking incubation we should definitely have SIG-network start the process.

 

Sorry for the confusion!

 

From: Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 2:15 PM
To: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox

 

The PR lists incubation as the desired level. So that is not accurate?

 

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:02 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Hi all,

 

I know we’ve talked about not syncing on TOC meetings to get new projects in.  As things stand, we have just submitted contour as a sandbox project and there is support from Alexis and Matt and me.

 

What do we want to consider necessary before we move forward?  Do we want to have SIG-network take a look or do we want to just “make it so”?

 

Personally, I’d be cool with just getting it in but don’t want to jump the gun.

 

Joe



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


KubeCon + CloudNativeCon NA 2019 Conference Transparency Report

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The latest conference transparent report is out, enjoy the read!

https://www.cncf.io/blog/2020/01/09/kubecon-cloudnativecon-north-america-2019-conference-transparency-report-the-biggest-kubecon-cloudnativecon-to-date/

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


Re: Comment on Increase Sandbox requirement to three sponsors from the TOC

Vinod
 

-1 NB ( I am not in favor of sponsoring concept at all )
 
I think sponsoring will lead to "King Makers" situation which is against the TOC principle.

I don’t agree that the CNCF sandbox entry barrier is low. Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

I don’t fully agree with the concept that all sandbox projects should graduate. Sandbox then won’t be the ideal name for this stage then. Ideally, all projects should graduate and the CNCF should build sustainable ecosystems for it but there are many other factors that the TOC or CNCF can't control. Projects may go to archives from any stage. The "rkt " project is an example of it.
 
I agree that the TOC review shouldn’t be a tick-the-box exercise. TOC should make the judgment based on facts, not based on what they like or dislike. A TOC member won’t necessarily get enthusiastic about a project if he/she knows very well about that project's domain and technology stack. Also, the TOC does not pick a “winning stack” as per the TOC's operating principles document.

I have opened an issue in the TOC repo with more details, feel free to comment your thoughts there.



On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 16:24 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
Hi Gerred, 

I wanted to follow up with a few thoughts on your comment here. 

Although the barrier to entry for Sandbox is intended to be low, we want to make sure that the projects that come in have a good chance of making it to incubation and graduation. Potential sponsors from the TOC should have confidence that the project is on the right path towards those criteria. It would be doing a disservice to a project if we were to accept it without that confidence. 

Acceptance to the CNCF at any level should never be just a tick-the-box exercise. The TOC should always be able to exercise their judgement and discretion. At the Sandbox level, if there aren’t enough TOC members with the confidence and enthusiasm in a project to step forward as sponsors, then it doesn’t get accepted. 

I hope that helps,
Liz

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



On 28 Dec 2019, at 06:07, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

-1 non-binding

i'm not thrilled with how the sandbox has already changed without a controlled burn rate, i disagree with this motion without other changes to the sandbox process happening. kudo has already been given -1s on sandbox inclusion based on incubating/graduating requirements in private as negative votes for inclusion -- despite communication that these weren't requirements. sandbox is either inclusive or it's not, and i'd rather inclusion at this stage, given there are no marketing expectations or official endorsement of these projects by the CNCF.

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 4:24 PM Thomas Mclennan <Thomas.mc@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding





Comment on Increase Sandbox requirement to three sponsors from the TOC

Liz Rice
 

Hi Gerred, 

I wanted to follow up with a few thoughts on your comment here. 

Although the barrier to entry for Sandbox is intended to be low, we want to make sure that the projects that come in have a good chance of making it to incubation and graduation. Potential sponsors from the TOC should have confidence that the project is on the right path towards those criteria. It would be doing a disservice to a project if we were to accept it without that confidence. 

Acceptance to the CNCF at any level should never be just a tick-the-box exercise. The TOC should always be able to exercise their judgement and discretion. At the Sandbox level, if there aren’t enough TOC members with the confidence and enthusiasm in a project to step forward as sponsors, then it doesn’t get accepted. 

I hope that helps,
Liz

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



On 28 Dec 2019, at 06:07, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

-1 non-binding

i'm not thrilled with how the sandbox has already changed without a controlled burn rate, i disagree with this motion without other changes to the sandbox process happening. kudo has already been given -1s on sandbox inclusion based on incubating/graduating requirements in private as negative votes for inclusion -- despite communication that these weren't requirements. sandbox is either inclusive or it's not, and i'd rather inclusion at this stage, given there are no marketing expectations or official endorsement of these projects by the CNCF.

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 4:24 PM Thomas Mclennan <Thomas.mc@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding





[RESULT] Falco Incubation (APPROVED)

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

The Falco project has been approved to the incubating maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/307

+1 binding TOC votes (7/9):
Matt Klein: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3922
Michelle Noorali: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3931
Joe Beda: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3952
Jeff Brewer: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3963
Xiang Li: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3967
Liz Rice: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3968
Alexis Richardson: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3970

+1 non-binding community votes:
Ken Owens: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3785
Farhad Arshad: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3786
Roger Klorese: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3787
Gaurav Garg: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3788
Mark Stemm: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3790
Radhika Puthiyetath: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3791
Justin Cormack: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3792
Matthew Caya: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3793
Chris Short: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3794
Gareth Rushgrove: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3800
Johan Tordsson: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3801
Rishi Divate: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3860
Jon Mittelhauser: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3861
Iftach Schonbaum: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3862
Kasper Nissen: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3863
Siddharth Bhadri: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3864
Johan Tordsson: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3865
Stephen Augustus: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3925
Brandon Lum: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3926
Philippe Robin: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3927
Golfen Guo: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3932
Max Körbächer: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3934
Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3964
Liam Randall: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3965
Lee Calcote: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3987

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


Re: Contour to CNCF sandbox

Chris Aniszczyk
 

sorry, this is my mistake, I assumed sandbox for contour out of the gate

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:11 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Ah – my mistake.  I know we talked about it.  Chris added the “sandbox” label so that confused me.  I’ll fix it.

 

Agree that if we are talking incubation we should definitely have SIG-network start the process.

 

Sorry for the confusion!

 

From: Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 2:15 PM
To: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox

 

The PR lists incubation as the desired level. So that is not accurate?

 

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:02 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Hi all,

 

I know we’ve talked about not syncing on TOC meetings to get new projects in.  As things stand, we have just submitted contour as a sandbox project and there is support from Alexis and Matt and me.

 

What do we want to consider necessary before we move forward?  Do we want to have SIG-network take a look or do we want to just “make it so”?

 

Personally, I’d be cool with just getting it in but don’t want to jump the gun.

 

Joe



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


Re: Contour to CNCF sandbox

Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
 

Ah – my mistake.  I know we talked about it.  Chris added the “sandbox” label so that confused me.  I’ll fix it.

 

Agree that if we are talking incubation we should definitely have SIG-network start the process.

 

Sorry for the confusion!

 

From: Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 2:15 PM
To: Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Contour to CNCF sandbox

 

The PR lists incubation as the desired level. So that is not accurate?

 

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:02 PM Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Hi all,

 

I know we’ve talked about not syncing on TOC meetings to get new projects in.  As things stand, we have just submitted contour as a sandbox project and there is support from Alexis and Matt and me.

 

What do we want to consider necessary before we move forward?  Do we want to have SIG-network take a look or do we want to just “make it so”?

 

Personally, I’d be cool with just getting it in but don’t want to jump the gun.

 

Joe

3661 - 3680 of 7729