Date   

Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

Paris Pittman <parispittman@...>
 

Thanks everyone! :) Based on the doodle poll, I'll go ahead and set up two times which gives more folks opportunities to join across time zones. I'll get the invites out ASAP to those who entered their info in the poll. 

  • Weds, Jan 29 @ 4:00pm PT (12amUTC)
  • Thurs, Jan 30 @ 7:30am PT (3:30pmUTC)

Spread the word to your networks and projects that may be interested. Reply to me for an invite if you'd like to participate. It would be good for those who want to be heavily involved with leading discovery and working group planning, to step forward now so we see skills/interest areas which will help shape the charter, too. Looking forward to it.


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:05 AM Alena Prokharchyk via Lists.Cncf.Io <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...> wrote:
+1 NB, this is awesome

-alena

> On Jan 23, 2020, at 6:09 AM, Geri Jennings <geri.jennings@...> wrote:
>
> +1 NB. I look forward to seeing the evolution of CNCF with this SIG in place.
>
> On 1/23/20, 8:11 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of Richard Hartmann" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of richih@...> wrote:
>
>    +1 NB
>
>    On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 1:43 AM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:
>
>> Big +1 from me. Very excited to see this SIG form as I think this is an area that many projects struggle with. The projects that don't struggle with this have some very overworked maintainers. ;)
>
>    *cough* and *cough*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> This e-mail may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
> If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or redistribute it by any means. Please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender that you have received it in error.
>
>
>






--

Paris Pittman

Kubernetes Community

Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud

345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105



Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

Alena Prokharchyk
 

+1 NB, this is awesome

-alena

On Jan 23, 2020, at 6:09 AM, Geri Jennings <geri.jennings@...> wrote:

+1 NB. I look forward to seeing the evolution of CNCF with this SIG in place.

On 1/23/20, 8:11 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of Richard Hartmann" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of richih@...> wrote:

+1 NB

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 1:43 AM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:

Big +1 from me. Very excited to see this SIG form as I think this is an area that many projects struggle with. The projects that don't struggle with this have some very overworked maintainers. ;)
*cough* and *cough*






----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
This e-mail may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or redistribute it by any means. Please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender that you have received it in error.



Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

Kiran Mova
 

+1 NB. Thank you! 


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:39 PM Geri Jennings <geri.jennings@...> wrote:
+1 NB. I look forward to seeing the evolution of CNCF with this SIG in place.

On 1/23/20, 8:11 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of Richard Hartmann" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of richih@...> wrote:

    +1 NB

    On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 1:43 AM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:

    > Big +1 from me. Very excited to see this SIG form as I think this is an area that many projects struggle with. The projects that don't struggle with this have some very overworked maintainers. ;)

    *cough* and *cough*






----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
This e-mail may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or redistribute it by any means. Please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender that you have received it in error.




Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

Geri Jennings
 

+1 NB. I look forward to seeing the evolution of CNCF with this SIG in place.

On 1/23/20, 8:11 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of Richard Hartmann" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of richih@...> wrote:

+1 NB

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 1:43 AM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:

> Big +1 from me. Very excited to see this SIG form as I think this is an area that many projects struggle with. The projects that don't struggle with this have some very overworked maintainers. ;)

*cough* and *cough*






----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
This e-mail may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or redistribute it by any means. Please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender that you have received it in error.


Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

Richard Hartmann
 

+1 NB

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 1:43 AM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:

Big +1 from me. Very excited to see this SIG form as I think this is an area that many projects struggle with. The projects that don't struggle with this have some very overworked maintainers. ;)
*cough* and *cough*


Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

Pengfei Ni
 

+1 NB


Best regards.


---
Pengfei Ni



Igor Mameshin <igor@...> 于2020年1月23日周四 下午1:07写道:

+1 NB

Thank you,
Igor

--
Igor Mameshin · CTO · Agile Stacks, Inc · Mobile: 858.229.7358 · igor@...



On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:00 PM Stephen Augustus <Stephen@...> wrote:
Huge +1 to the proposal and echoing Gerred's sentiment for Paris as a Chair if/when this forms.

SIG ContribEx is _one of_ the most important SIGs in Kubernetes and Paris has been an absolute force there.

We'd be lucky to have her affecting change on the CNCF SIG level! :)

-- Stephen

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 14:45 Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:
+1 NB this is the most important SIG in Kubernetes. I know this isn't the right thread for my followup, but since chairs are confirmed by the TOC I immediately +1 Paris as a co-chair, if she is nominated, as a chair for this SIG. In short, she kicks the llama's ass (I haven't asked the WinAMP llama how they feel about this) and not only is the best person for this role, will also find fantastic successors to this role. Thanks, Paris, for driving this.

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:26 PM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Great presentation today - where can I sign up? We need this SIG ASAP. 

+1 NB

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:19 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Good summary Matt!

Paris, just wanted to say thanks for your presentation today. 

A


On Tue, 21 Jan 2020, 18:17 Matt Farina, <matt@...> wrote:
Paris,

On the call today you suggested pairing down the scope of the SIG because there is so much proposed. It occured to me that contributing to the CNCF can mean a lot of things. To large areas are contributions to SIGs and to projects. In your opinion, should the SIG initially be limited to one area of focus (and if so which one) or to focus on both?

For those not familiar... CNCF SIGs are a little different from Kubernetes SIGs.  Kubernetes SIGs own and are responsible for code within Kubernetes. CNCF SIGs are an extension of the TOC:

The CNCF TOC Special Interest Groups scale contributions by the CNCF technical and user community, while retaining integrity and increasing quality in support of our mission.

Each project has their own governance model and contribution process. Where Kubernetes SIGs have a solid line or ownership to Kubernetes code, CNCF TOC SIGs have a dotted line relationship to CNCF Projects who own the code and governance. The dotted line relationship means that projects do work with and connect to a SIG but the ownership model is different.

Regards,
Matt

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io wrote:
Thanks TOC and community members for your time today on the call and support via mailing list. 

Next steps: smooth out the charter and have interested folks step forward to help bootstrap. after, TOC vote/review later on. 
doodle poll[1] for those who are interested. looking forward to this!

paris 




On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM Ricardo Aravena <raravena80@...> wrote:
+1 nb

I think healthy projects have to have happy maintainers and contributors to thrive long-term. Also, part of that is for them to feel genuinely welcomed and included.



On Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:51 PM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 NB. This SIG stands to benefit all projects, and hopefully, help recognize all types of contributors (non-code). I’d like to see a contributor ladder come forth here.

- Lee

On Jan 17, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io <parispittman=google.com@...> wrote:

Hi TOC and community,

I'm watching the emails fly by re: maintainer things so figured no time like the present to send this start of a proposal along. I've been working on it for a few weeks and getting input. I think I'm a first-time poster, very-long-time lurker to this list, hello! 

I recently stepped back from my role as co-chair for Kubernetes Contributor Experience Special Interest Group that I held for 2 years. Sarah Novotny, Brian Grant, Phil Wittrock and many(!) others decided that a place for intentional contributor community building was necessary and I'm glad they did. I believe it's the secret sauce but yes - I'm bias. :)

A group like this[1] could help many stakeholders, as outlined in this work-in-progress doc, including engaging the end user community in new ways, and current cncf projects that don't have a ContribEx/CommComm (nod to nodejs). It's important to note in the out-of-scope section, this group isn't going to do the work for your project but will help you get there and learn together. I've spoken to some TOC members and many project maintainers about this. 

Notes:
  • This is a pretty broad charter that should absolutely be trimmed down after formation, discovery, and some other kick off activities. 
  • Left broad as most of the work will depend on the known gaps and the contributors/community members who step forward to help with them.

paris






--


Paris Pittman
Kubernetes Community
Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud
345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105






--


Paris Pittman

Kubernetes Community

Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud

345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105





--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

Igor Mameshin
 

+1 NB

Thank you,
Igor

--
Igor Mameshin · CTO · Agile Stacks, Inc · Mobile: 858.229.7358 · igor@...



On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:00 PM Stephen Augustus <Stephen@...> wrote:
Huge +1 to the proposal and echoing Gerred's sentiment for Paris as a Chair if/when this forms.

SIG ContribEx is _one of_ the most important SIGs in Kubernetes and Paris has been an absolute force there.

We'd be lucky to have her affecting change on the CNCF SIG level! :)

-- Stephen

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 14:45 Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:
+1 NB this is the most important SIG in Kubernetes. I know this isn't the right thread for my followup, but since chairs are confirmed by the TOC I immediately +1 Paris as a co-chair, if she is nominated, as a chair for this SIG. In short, she kicks the llama's ass (I haven't asked the WinAMP llama how they feel about this) and not only is the best person for this role, will also find fantastic successors to this role. Thanks, Paris, for driving this.

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:26 PM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Great presentation today - where can I sign up? We need this SIG ASAP. 

+1 NB

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:19 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Good summary Matt!

Paris, just wanted to say thanks for your presentation today. 

A


On Tue, 21 Jan 2020, 18:17 Matt Farina, <matt@...> wrote:
Paris,

On the call today you suggested pairing down the scope of the SIG because there is so much proposed. It occured to me that contributing to the CNCF can mean a lot of things. To large areas are contributions to SIGs and to projects. In your opinion, should the SIG initially be limited to one area of focus (and if so which one) or to focus on both?

For those not familiar... CNCF SIGs are a little different from Kubernetes SIGs.  Kubernetes SIGs own and are responsible for code within Kubernetes. CNCF SIGs are an extension of the TOC:

The CNCF TOC Special Interest Groups scale contributions by the CNCF technical and user community, while retaining integrity and increasing quality in support of our mission.

Each project has their own governance model and contribution process. Where Kubernetes SIGs have a solid line or ownership to Kubernetes code, CNCF TOC SIGs have a dotted line relationship to CNCF Projects who own the code and governance. The dotted line relationship means that projects do work with and connect to a SIG but the ownership model is different.

Regards,
Matt

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io wrote:
Thanks TOC and community members for your time today on the call and support via mailing list. 

Next steps: smooth out the charter and have interested folks step forward to help bootstrap. after, TOC vote/review later on. 
doodle poll[1] for those who are interested. looking forward to this!

paris 




On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM Ricardo Aravena <raravena80@...> wrote:
+1 nb

I think healthy projects have to have happy maintainers and contributors to thrive long-term. Also, part of that is for them to feel genuinely welcomed and included.



On Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:51 PM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 NB. This SIG stands to benefit all projects, and hopefully, help recognize all types of contributors (non-code). I’d like to see a contributor ladder come forth here.

- Lee

On Jan 17, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io <parispittman=google.com@...> wrote:

Hi TOC and community,

I'm watching the emails fly by re: maintainer things so figured no time like the present to send this start of a proposal along. I've been working on it for a few weeks and getting input. I think I'm a first-time poster, very-long-time lurker to this list, hello! 

I recently stepped back from my role as co-chair for Kubernetes Contributor Experience Special Interest Group that I held for 2 years. Sarah Novotny, Brian Grant, Phil Wittrock and many(!) others decided that a place for intentional contributor community building was necessary and I'm glad they did. I believe it's the secret sauce but yes - I'm bias. :)

A group like this[1] could help many stakeholders, as outlined in this work-in-progress doc, including engaging the end user community in new ways, and current cncf projects that don't have a ContribEx/CommComm (nod to nodejs). It's important to note in the out-of-scope section, this group isn't going to do the work for your project but will help you get there and learn together. I've spoken to some TOC members and many project maintainers about this. 

Notes:
  • This is a pretty broad charter that should absolutely be trimmed down after formation, discovery, and some other kick off activities. 
  • Left broad as most of the work will depend on the known gaps and the contributors/community members who step forward to help with them.

paris






--


Paris Pittman
Kubernetes Community
Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud
345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105






--


Paris Pittman

Kubernetes Community

Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud

345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105





--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

Stephen Augustus
 

Huge +1 to the proposal and echoing Gerred's sentiment for Paris as a Chair if/when this forms.

SIG ContribEx is _one of_ the most important SIGs in Kubernetes and Paris has been an absolute force there.

We'd be lucky to have her affecting change on the CNCF SIG level! :)

-- Stephen

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 14:45 Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:
+1 NB this is the most important SIG in Kubernetes. I know this isn't the right thread for my followup, but since chairs are confirmed by the TOC I immediately +1 Paris as a co-chair, if she is nominated, as a chair for this SIG. In short, she kicks the llama's ass (I haven't asked the WinAMP llama how they feel about this) and not only is the best person for this role, will also find fantastic successors to this role. Thanks, Paris, for driving this.

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:26 PM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Great presentation today - where can I sign up? We need this SIG ASAP. 

+1 NB

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:19 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Good summary Matt!

Paris, just wanted to say thanks for your presentation today. 

A


On Tue, 21 Jan 2020, 18:17 Matt Farina, <matt@...> wrote:
Paris,

On the call today you suggested pairing down the scope of the SIG because there is so much proposed. It occured to me that contributing to the CNCF can mean a lot of things. To large areas are contributions to SIGs and to projects. In your opinion, should the SIG initially be limited to one area of focus (and if so which one) or to focus on both?

For those not familiar... CNCF SIGs are a little different from Kubernetes SIGs.  Kubernetes SIGs own and are responsible for code within Kubernetes. CNCF SIGs are an extension of the TOC:

The CNCF TOC Special Interest Groups scale contributions by the CNCF technical and user community, while retaining integrity and increasing quality in support of our mission.

Each project has their own governance model and contribution process. Where Kubernetes SIGs have a solid line or ownership to Kubernetes code, CNCF TOC SIGs have a dotted line relationship to CNCF Projects who own the code and governance. The dotted line relationship means that projects do work with and connect to a SIG but the ownership model is different.

Regards,
Matt

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io wrote:
Thanks TOC and community members for your time today on the call and support via mailing list. 

Next steps: smooth out the charter and have interested folks step forward to help bootstrap. after, TOC vote/review later on. 
doodle poll[1] for those who are interested. looking forward to this!

paris 




On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM Ricardo Aravena <raravena80@...> wrote:
+1 nb

I think healthy projects have to have happy maintainers and contributors to thrive long-term. Also, part of that is for them to feel genuinely welcomed and included.



On Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:51 PM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 NB. This SIG stands to benefit all projects, and hopefully, help recognize all types of contributors (non-code). I’d like to see a contributor ladder come forth here.

- Lee

On Jan 17, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io <parispittman=google.com@...> wrote:

Hi TOC and community,

I'm watching the emails fly by re: maintainer things so figured no time like the present to send this start of a proposal along. I've been working on it for a few weeks and getting input. I think I'm a first-time poster, very-long-time lurker to this list, hello! 

I recently stepped back from my role as co-chair for Kubernetes Contributor Experience Special Interest Group that I held for 2 years. Sarah Novotny, Brian Grant, Phil Wittrock and many(!) others decided that a place for intentional contributor community building was necessary and I'm glad they did. I believe it's the secret sauce but yes - I'm bias. :)

A group like this[1] could help many stakeholders, as outlined in this work-in-progress doc, including engaging the end user community in new ways, and current cncf projects that don't have a ContribEx/CommComm (nod to nodejs). It's important to note in the out-of-scope section, this group isn't going to do the work for your project but will help you get there and learn together. I've spoken to some TOC members and many project maintainers about this. 

Notes:
  • This is a pretty broad charter that should absolutely be trimmed down after formation, discovery, and some other kick off activities. 
  • Left broad as most of the work will depend on the known gaps and the contributors/community members who step forward to help with them.

paris






--


Paris Pittman
Kubernetes Community
Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud
345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105






--


Paris Pittman

Kubernetes Community

Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud

345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105





--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


Re: [RESULT] SIG Runtime (Approved)

Quinton Hoole <quinton@...>
 

Awesome!  Thanks to all who contributed to this.

Q


On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 3:25 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
The CNCF SIG Runtime has been approved.

+1 Binding: 7/9
Alexis Richardson: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4006
Matt Klein: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4006
Joe Beda: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4012
Liz Rice: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4032
Brian Grant: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4036
Brendan Burns: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4038
Xiang Li: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4039

+1 Non-binding:
Gou Rao: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4008
Alex Chircop: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4009
Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4013
Gadi Naor: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4014
Xing Yang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4015
Davanum Srinivas: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4016
Jon Mittlehauser: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4017
Brandon Lum: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4018
Kevin Wang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4019
Ken Owens: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4020
Klaus Ma: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4021
Karl Wehden: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4022
Abdul Aziz: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4023
Mark Peek: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4024
Siddharth Bhadri: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4025
Xu Wang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4026
Leonardo Di Donato: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4027
Nikhita Raghunath: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4028
Philippe Robin: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4029
Rabi Abdel: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4030
Pengfei Ni: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4031
Haining Zhang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4035
Michael Hausenblas: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4040
Kiran Mova: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4041
Cathy Zhang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4044

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



--
Quinton Hoole
quinton@...


Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

Jeremy Rickard
 

+1 NB, this is great! 

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 2:49 PM Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io <parispittman=google.com@...> wrote:
Hi TOC and community,

I'm watching the emails fly by re: maintainer things so figured no time like the present to send this start of a proposal along. I've been working on it for a few weeks and getting input. I think I'm a first-time poster, very-long-time lurker to this list, hello! 

I recently stepped back from my role as co-chair for Kubernetes Contributor Experience Special Interest Group that I held for 2 years. Sarah Novotny, Brian Grant, Phil Wittrock and many(!) others decided that a place for intentional contributor community building was necessary and I'm glad they did. I believe it's the secret sauce but yes - I'm bias. :)

A group like this[1] could help many stakeholders, as outlined in this work-in-progress doc, including engaging the end user community in new ways, and current cncf projects that don't have a ContribEx/CommComm (nod to nodejs). It's important to note in the out-of-scope section, this group isn't going to do the work for your project but will help you get there and learn together. I've spoken to some TOC members and many project maintainers about this. 

Notes:
  • This is a pretty broad charter that should absolutely be trimmed down after formation, discovery, and some other kick off activities. 
  • Left broad as most of the work will depend on the known gaps and the contributors/community members who step forward to help with them.

paris


Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

Leonardo Di Donato
 

+1 nb
L.


On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:20 PM Nicola Marco Decandia <n.decandia@...> wrote:

+1 NB

 

Thanks

 

--- 

/var/folders/t9/633c27117zl1dfcw0dkx1cw00000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Content.MSO/814E4D66.tmp 

Nicola Marco Decandia
Desotech S.r.l.

+39.0803105224 | +39.3404191066 | n.decandia@...

https://www.desotech.it

Altamura - Roma - Milano

 


Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

Nicola Marco Decandia
 

+1 NB

 

Thanks

 

--- 

/var/folders/t9/633c27117zl1dfcw0dkx1cw00000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Content.MSO/814E4D66.tmp 

Nicola Marco Decandia
Desotech S.r.l.

+39.0803105224 | +39.3404191066 | n.decandia@...

https://www.desotech.it

Altamura - Roma - Milano

 


Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

Roger Klorese
 

Yes please! +1 NB

Roger B.A. Klorese (they/them or he/him)
Senior Product Manager
SUSE

255 King Street Suite 800
Seattle WA 98104
(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


On Jan 21, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:


+1 NB this is the most important SIG in Kubernetes. I know this isn't the right thread for my followup, but since chairs are confirmed by the TOC I immediately +1 Paris as a co-chair, if she is nominated, as a chair for this SIG. In short, she kicks the llama's ass (I haven't asked the WinAMP llama how they feel about this) and not only is the best person for this role, will also find fantastic successors to this role. Thanks, Paris, for driving this.

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:26 PM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Great presentation today - where can I sign up? We need this SIG ASAP. 

+1 NB

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:19 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Good summary Matt!

Paris, just wanted to say thanks for your presentation today. 

A


On Tue, 21 Jan 2020, 18:17 Matt Farina, <matt@...> wrote:
Paris,

On the call today you suggested pairing down the scope of the SIG because there is so much proposed. It occured to me that contributing to the CNCF can mean a lot of things. To large areas are contributions to SIGs and to projects. In your opinion, should the SIG initially be limited to one area of focus (and if so which one) or to focus on both?

For those not familiar... CNCF SIGs are a little different from Kubernetes SIGs.  Kubernetes SIGs own and are responsible for code within Kubernetes. CNCF SIGs are an extension of the TOC:

The CNCF TOC Special Interest Groups scale contributions by the CNCF technical and user community, while retaining integrity and increasing quality in support of our mission.

Each project has their own governance model and contribution process. Where Kubernetes SIGs have a solid line or ownership to Kubernetes code, CNCF TOC SIGs have a dotted line relationship to CNCF Projects who own the code and governance. The dotted line relationship means that projects do work with and connect to a SIG but the ownership model is different.

Regards,
Matt

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io wrote:
Thanks TOC and community members for your time today on the call and support via mailing list. 

Next steps: smooth out the charter and have interested folks step forward to help bootstrap. after, TOC vote/review later on. 
doodle poll[1] for those who are interested. looking forward to this!

paris 




On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM Ricardo Aravena <raravena80@...> wrote:
+1 nb

I think healthy projects have to have happy maintainers and contributors to thrive long-term. Also, part of that is for them to feel genuinely welcomed and included.



On Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:51 PM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 NB. This SIG stands to benefit all projects, and hopefully, help recognize all types of contributors (non-code). I’d like to see a contributor ladder come forth here.

- Lee

On Jan 17, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io <parispittman=google.com@...> wrote:

Hi TOC and community,

I'm watching the emails fly by re: maintainer things so figured no time like the present to send this start of a proposal along. I've been working on it for a few weeks and getting input. I think I'm a first-time poster, very-long-time lurker to this list, hello! 

I recently stepped back from my role as co-chair for Kubernetes Contributor Experience Special Interest Group that I held for 2 years. Sarah Novotny, Brian Grant, Phil Wittrock and many(!) others decided that a place for intentional contributor community building was necessary and I'm glad they did. I believe it's the secret sauce but yes - I'm bias. :)

A group like this[1] could help many stakeholders, as outlined in this work-in-progress doc, including engaging the end user community in new ways, and current cncf projects that don't have a ContribEx/CommComm (nod to nodejs). It's important to note in the out-of-scope section, this group isn't going to do the work for your project but will help you get there and learn together. I've spoken to some TOC members and many project maintainers about this. 

Notes:
  • This is a pretty broad charter that should absolutely be trimmed down after formation, discovery, and some other kick off activities. 
  • Left broad as most of the work will depend on the known gaps and the contributors/community members who step forward to help with them.

paris






--


Paris Pittman
Kubernetes Community
Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud
345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105






--


Paris Pittman

Kubernetes Community

Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud

345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105





--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

Gerred Dillon
 

+1 NB this is the most important SIG in Kubernetes. I know this isn't the right thread for my followup, but since chairs are confirmed by the TOC I immediately +1 Paris as a co-chair, if she is nominated, as a chair for this SIG. In short, she kicks the llama's ass (I haven't asked the WinAMP llama how they feel about this) and not only is the best person for this role, will also find fantastic successors to this role. Thanks, Paris, for driving this.

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:26 PM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Great presentation today - where can I sign up? We need this SIG ASAP. 

+1 NB

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:19 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Good summary Matt!

Paris, just wanted to say thanks for your presentation today. 

A


On Tue, 21 Jan 2020, 18:17 Matt Farina, <matt@...> wrote:
Paris,

On the call today you suggested pairing down the scope of the SIG because there is so much proposed. It occured to me that contributing to the CNCF can mean a lot of things. To large areas are contributions to SIGs and to projects. In your opinion, should the SIG initially be limited to one area of focus (and if so which one) or to focus on both?

For those not familiar... CNCF SIGs are a little different from Kubernetes SIGs.  Kubernetes SIGs own and are responsible for code within Kubernetes. CNCF SIGs are an extension of the TOC:

The CNCF TOC Special Interest Groups scale contributions by the CNCF technical and user community, while retaining integrity and increasing quality in support of our mission.

Each project has their own governance model and contribution process. Where Kubernetes SIGs have a solid line or ownership to Kubernetes code, CNCF TOC SIGs have a dotted line relationship to CNCF Projects who own the code and governance. The dotted line relationship means that projects do work with and connect to a SIG but the ownership model is different.

Regards,
Matt

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io wrote:
Thanks TOC and community members for your time today on the call and support via mailing list. 

Next steps: smooth out the charter and have interested folks step forward to help bootstrap. after, TOC vote/review later on. 
doodle poll[1] for those who are interested. looking forward to this!

paris 




On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM Ricardo Aravena <raravena80@...> wrote:
+1 nb

I think healthy projects have to have happy maintainers and contributors to thrive long-term. Also, part of that is for them to feel genuinely welcomed and included.



On Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:51 PM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 NB. This SIG stands to benefit all projects, and hopefully, help recognize all types of contributors (non-code). I’d like to see a contributor ladder come forth here.

- Lee

On Jan 17, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io <parispittman=google.com@...> wrote:

Hi TOC and community,

I'm watching the emails fly by re: maintainer things so figured no time like the present to send this start of a proposal along. I've been working on it for a few weeks and getting input. I think I'm a first-time poster, very-long-time lurker to this list, hello! 

I recently stepped back from my role as co-chair for Kubernetes Contributor Experience Special Interest Group that I held for 2 years. Sarah Novotny, Brian Grant, Phil Wittrock and many(!) others decided that a place for intentional contributor community building was necessary and I'm glad they did. I believe it's the secret sauce but yes - I'm bias. :)

A group like this[1] could help many stakeholders, as outlined in this work-in-progress doc, including engaging the end user community in new ways, and current cncf projects that don't have a ContribEx/CommComm (nod to nodejs). It's important to note in the out-of-scope section, this group isn't going to do the work for your project but will help you get there and learn together. I've spoken to some TOC members and many project maintainers about this. 

Notes:
  • This is a pretty broad charter that should absolutely be trimmed down after formation, discovery, and some other kick off activities. 
  • Left broad as most of the work will depend on the known gaps and the contributors/community members who step forward to help with them.

paris






--


Paris Pittman
Kubernetes Community
Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud
345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105






--


Paris Pittman

Kubernetes Community

Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud

345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105





--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

Kris Nova <kris.nova@...>
 

Great presentation today - where can I sign up? We need this SIG ASAP. 

+1 NB


On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:19 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Good summary Matt!

Paris, just wanted to say thanks for your presentation today. 

A


On Tue, 21 Jan 2020, 18:17 Matt Farina, <matt@...> wrote:
Paris,

On the call today you suggested pairing down the scope of the SIG because there is so much proposed. It occured to me that contributing to the CNCF can mean a lot of things. To large areas are contributions to SIGs and to projects. In your opinion, should the SIG initially be limited to one area of focus (and if so which one) or to focus on both?

For those not familiar... CNCF SIGs are a little different from Kubernetes SIGs.  Kubernetes SIGs own and are responsible for code within Kubernetes. CNCF SIGs are an extension of the TOC:

The CNCF TOC Special Interest Groups scale contributions by the CNCF technical and user community, while retaining integrity and increasing quality in support of our mission.

Each project has their own governance model and contribution process. Where Kubernetes SIGs have a solid line or ownership to Kubernetes code, CNCF TOC SIGs have a dotted line relationship to CNCF Projects who own the code and governance. The dotted line relationship means that projects do work with and connect to a SIG but the ownership model is different.

Regards,
Matt

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io wrote:
Thanks TOC and community members for your time today on the call and support via mailing list. 

Next steps: smooth out the charter and have interested folks step forward to help bootstrap. after, TOC vote/review later on. 
doodle poll[1] for those who are interested. looking forward to this!

paris 




On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM Ricardo Aravena <raravena80@...> wrote:
+1 nb

I think healthy projects have to have happy maintainers and contributors to thrive long-term. Also, part of that is for them to feel genuinely welcomed and included.



On Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:51 PM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 NB. This SIG stands to benefit all projects, and hopefully, help recognize all types of contributors (non-code). I’d like to see a contributor ladder come forth here.

- Lee

On Jan 17, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io <parispittman=google.com@...> wrote:

Hi TOC and community,

I'm watching the emails fly by re: maintainer things so figured no time like the present to send this start of a proposal along. I've been working on it for a few weeks and getting input. I think I'm a first-time poster, very-long-time lurker to this list, hello! 

I recently stepped back from my role as co-chair for Kubernetes Contributor Experience Special Interest Group that I held for 2 years. Sarah Novotny, Brian Grant, Phil Wittrock and many(!) others decided that a place for intentional contributor community building was necessary and I'm glad they did. I believe it's the secret sauce but yes - I'm bias. :)

A group like this[1] could help many stakeholders, as outlined in this work-in-progress doc, including engaging the end user community in new ways, and current cncf projects that don't have a ContribEx/CommComm (nod to nodejs). It's important to note in the out-of-scope section, this group isn't going to do the work for your project but will help you get there and learn together. I've spoken to some TOC members and many project maintainers about this. 

Notes:
  • This is a pretty broad charter that should absolutely be trimmed down after formation, discovery, and some other kick off activities. 
  • Left broad as most of the work will depend on the known gaps and the contributors/community members who step forward to help with them.

paris






--


Paris Pittman
Kubernetes Community
Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud
345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105






--


Paris Pittman

Kubernetes Community

Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud

345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105





--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

alexis richardson
 

Good summary Matt!

Paris, just wanted to say thanks for your presentation today. 

A


On Tue, 21 Jan 2020, 18:17 Matt Farina, <matt@...> wrote:
Paris,

On the call today you suggested pairing down the scope of the SIG because there is so much proposed. It occured to me that contributing to the CNCF can mean a lot of things. To large areas are contributions to SIGs and to projects. In your opinion, should the SIG initially be limited to one area of focus (and if so which one) or to focus on both?

For those not familiar... CNCF SIGs are a little different from Kubernetes SIGs.  Kubernetes SIGs own and are responsible for code within Kubernetes. CNCF SIGs are an extension of the TOC:

The CNCF TOC Special Interest Groups scale contributions by the CNCF technical and user community, while retaining integrity and increasing quality in support of our mission.

Each project has their own governance model and contribution process. Where Kubernetes SIGs have a solid line or ownership to Kubernetes code, CNCF TOC SIGs have a dotted line relationship to CNCF Projects who own the code and governance. The dotted line relationship means that projects do work with and connect to a SIG but the ownership model is different.

Regards,
Matt

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io wrote:
Thanks TOC and community members for your time today on the call and support via mailing list. 

Next steps: smooth out the charter and have interested folks step forward to help bootstrap. after, TOC vote/review later on. 
doodle poll[1] for those who are interested. looking forward to this!

paris 




On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM Ricardo Aravena <raravena80@...> wrote:
+1 nb

I think healthy projects have to have happy maintainers and contributors to thrive long-term. Also, part of that is for them to feel genuinely welcomed and included.



On Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:51 PM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 NB. This SIG stands to benefit all projects, and hopefully, help recognize all types of contributors (non-code). I’d like to see a contributor ladder come forth here.

- Lee

On Jan 17, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io <parispittman=google.com@...> wrote:

Hi TOC and community,

I'm watching the emails fly by re: maintainer things so figured no time like the present to send this start of a proposal along. I've been working on it for a few weeks and getting input. I think I'm a first-time poster, very-long-time lurker to this list, hello! 

I recently stepped back from my role as co-chair for Kubernetes Contributor Experience Special Interest Group that I held for 2 years. Sarah Novotny, Brian Grant, Phil Wittrock and many(!) others decided that a place for intentional contributor community building was necessary and I'm glad they did. I believe it's the secret sauce but yes - I'm bias. :)

A group like this[1] could help many stakeholders, as outlined in this work-in-progress doc, including engaging the end user community in new ways, and current cncf projects that don't have a ContribEx/CommComm (nod to nodejs). It's important to note in the out-of-scope section, this group isn't going to do the work for your project but will help you get there and learn together. I've spoken to some TOC members and many project maintainers about this. 

Notes:
  • This is a pretty broad charter that should absolutely be trimmed down after formation, discovery, and some other kick off activities. 
  • Left broad as most of the work will depend on the known gaps and the contributors/community members who step forward to help with them.

paris






--


Paris Pittman
Kubernetes Community
Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud
345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105






--


Paris Pittman

Kubernetes Community

Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud

345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105




Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

Matt Farina
 

Paris,

On the call today you suggested pairing down the scope of the SIG because there is so much proposed. It occured to me that contributing to the CNCF can mean a lot of things. To large areas are contributions to SIGs and to projects. In your opinion, should the SIG initially be limited to one area of focus (and if so which one) or to focus on both?

For those not familiar... CNCF SIGs are a little different from Kubernetes SIGs.  Kubernetes SIGs own and are responsible for code within Kubernetes. CNCF SIGs are an extension of the TOC:

The CNCF TOC Special Interest Groups scale contributions by the CNCF technical and user community, while retaining integrity and increasing quality in support of our mission.

Each project has their own governance model and contribution process. Where Kubernetes SIGs have a solid line or ownership to Kubernetes code, CNCF TOC SIGs have a dotted line relationship to CNCF Projects who own the code and governance. The dotted line relationship means that projects do work with and connect to a SIG but the ownership model is different.

Regards,
Matt

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io wrote:
Thanks TOC and community members for your time today on the call and support via mailing list. 

Next steps: smooth out the charter and have interested folks step forward to help bootstrap. after, TOC vote/review later on. 
doodle poll[1] for those who are interested. looking forward to this!

paris 




On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM Ricardo Aravena <raravena80@...> wrote:
+1 nb

I think healthy projects have to have happy maintainers and contributors to thrive long-term. Also, part of that is for them to feel genuinely welcomed and included.



On Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:51 PM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 NB. This SIG stands to benefit all projects, and hopefully, help recognize all types of contributors (non-code). I’d like to see a contributor ladder come forth here.

- Lee

On Jan 17, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io <parispittman=google.com@...> wrote:

Hi TOC and community,

I'm watching the emails fly by re: maintainer things so figured no time like the present to send this start of a proposal along. I've been working on it for a few weeks and getting input. I think I'm a first-time poster, very-long-time lurker to this list, hello! 

I recently stepped back from my role as co-chair for Kubernetes Contributor Experience Special Interest Group that I held for 2 years. Sarah Novotny, Brian Grant, Phil Wittrock and many(!) others decided that a place for intentional contributor community building was necessary and I'm glad they did. I believe it's the secret sauce but yes - I'm bias. :)

A group like this[1] could help many stakeholders, as outlined in this work-in-progress doc, including engaging the end user community in new ways, and current cncf projects that don't have a ContribEx/CommComm (nod to nodejs). It's important to note in the out-of-scope section, this group isn't going to do the work for your project but will help you get there and learn together. I've spoken to some TOC members and many project maintainers about this. 

Notes:
  • This is a pretty broad charter that should absolutely be trimmed down after formation, discovery, and some other kick off activities. 
  • Left broad as most of the work will depend on the known gaps and the contributors/community members who step forward to help with them.

paris






--


Paris Pittman
Kubernetes Community
Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud
345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105






--


Paris Pittman

Kubernetes Community

Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud

345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105




Re: CNCF SIG Contributor Experience Proposal

Paris Pittman <parispittman@...>
 

Thanks TOC and community members for your time today on the call and support via mailing list. 

Next steps: smooth out the charter and have interested folks step forward to help bootstrap. after, TOC vote/review later on. 
doodle poll[1] for those who are interested. looking forward to this!

paris 




On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM Ricardo Aravena <raravena80@...> wrote:
+1 nb

I think healthy projects have to have happy maintainers and contributors to thrive long-term. Also, part of that is for them to feel genuinely welcomed and included.



On Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:51 PM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 NB. This SIG stands to benefit all projects, and hopefully, help recognize all types of contributors (non-code). I’d like to see a contributor ladder come forth here.

- Lee

On Jan 17, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io <parispittman=google.com@...> wrote:

Hi TOC and community,

I'm watching the emails fly by re: maintainer things so figured no time like the present to send this start of a proposal along. I've been working on it for a few weeks and getting input. I think I'm a first-time poster, very-long-time lurker to this list, hello! 

I recently stepped back from my role as co-chair for Kubernetes Contributor Experience Special Interest Group that I held for 2 years. Sarah Novotny, Brian Grant, Phil Wittrock and many(!) others decided that a place for intentional contributor community building was necessary and I'm glad they did. I believe it's the secret sauce but yes - I'm bias. :)

A group like this[1] could help many stakeholders, as outlined in this work-in-progress doc, including engaging the end user community in new ways, and current cncf projects that don't have a ContribEx/CommComm (nod to nodejs). It's important to note in the out-of-scope section, this group isn't going to do the work for your project but will help you get there and learn together. I've spoken to some TOC members and many project maintainers about this. 

Notes:
  • This is a pretty broad charter that should absolutely be trimmed down after formation, discovery, and some other kick off activities. 
  • Left broad as most of the work will depend on the known gaps and the contributors/community members who step forward to help with them.

paris

[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UYIp55jsEn7hSGHOh4sXXx_VnqPL0E0upsWCUZB5Tn8/edit?usp=sharing 






--

Paris Pittman
Kubernetes Community
Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud
345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105




--

Paris Pittman

Kubernetes Community

Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud

345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105



CNCF Annual Report 2019

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The CNCF Annual Report for 2019 is live:

Thank you everyone for a great year, we look forward to serving the community in 2020 and beyond!

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


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

alexis richardson
 

Vinod

Great questions. I recommend you look at two paths to offer help -

1) Please get involved in SIG Security. And maybe connect with
Keycloak team and ask them what they plan to do next with the SIG, if
anything.

2) Have a look at the updated Sandbox process once it is published.
This is intended to clarify matters for the community!

alexis

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:26 PM Vinod NA <vinod@...> wrote:

Hi Alexis,

I have contacted the TOC 6 months ago offering help in reviewing sandbox submission for which I have already reviewed the quality and used it in production for years. I didn't receive any response.

Could you please let the community know what quality metrics the TOC members are interested in, to get enthusiastic about the project? This will help the projects, especially that now they have to get 3 sponsors?

Thanks,

Vinod

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:02 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Vinod

Thanks for clarifying that. Normally when people say "partial" they
imply agency. I think you are saying that the Process is not clear
and (to your eyes) may be broken.

Can I ask please: are you aware that we stopped all new projects for
many months? That is why there is a backlog. We are trying to get
back on track. It is a lot of work, if you want to help.

a

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:13 PM Vinod NA <vinod@...> wrote:

Hi Alex,

I am not accusing anyone. I am interested in more open-source projects joining the CNCF ecosystem and at the same time, improving the growth and health of those projects. I believe the current TOC process results in unfair treatment for open-source projects, and it makes some of them, wait more than a year to get TOC sponsors. I think the current TOC process is not following the CNCF principles mentioned below.

https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/charter.md#3-values

Thank you,

Vinod

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:13 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Vinod

Who are you accusing of being partial.

Alexis


On Sun, 12 Jan 2020, 23:53 Vinod NA, <vinod@...> wrote:

Thank you very much to all who were courageous enough to speak about the partiality. At some point, I felt I was a mad person.


@Matt, thank you very much for your input. I hope that the TOC will consider it. I think most of the other foundations are focusing on two levels. In the following CNCF documentation, it’s directing the sandbox as “experimental" projects. And it also says “It is expected that some Sandbox projects may fail”.

https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md

IMHO I think too much red taping, unfair treatment should be avoided for the sandbox onboarding so that the process will align with the CNCF principles.


@Alexis, It’s good to know that your company has already reviewed the quality of the project and it's using it. Like Contour, other projects coming to CNCF may be also used by multiple other CNCF members and they might have also reviewed the quality. My kind request is to treat all incoming projects “fairly” and to put CNCF's interest first. I consider the TOC as a supreme court for the CNCF, I think that the TOC members should be like judges and make a judgment based on facts (keep their personal and professional interests aside).


My intention is only to propose improvements in the process so that this kind of partiality can be avoided in the future. I have mentioned it in the GitHub issue. The TOC members may have a different opinion and may consider that so far every submission is treated fairly and all submissions are completed in a fast manner, but as an individual who follows the TOC meeting recordings, presentations, TOC mailing list emails, I don’t have the same opinion. That’s why I have created a GitHub issue explaining issues at a high level, however, as the TOC couldn’t understand it, I have added more details and I've also included some examples. My intention wasn’t to hurt anybody’s feelings, I am really sorry if you have felt that way. But I do have the right to express my own opinion.


Feel free to comment your views on the GitHub issue ( https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/331 ). I am not interested in spamming many people and that's why I was trying to avoid communication in the mailing list and focus on the GitHub issue.


@Liz, CNCF should be fair to all projects and at least let them know what they have to do to get "SPONSOR". Also, I think it would become a better experience for the projects if all the TOCs are aligned with the CNCF, TOC principles and process.


Sandbox projects waiting for TOC sponsors

( 7 Months ) https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/261

( 8 Months ) https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/255

( 9 Months ) https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/237

( 1 Year ) https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/189

( 1 Year and 6 months ) https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/128

( 1 Year and 9 months ) https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/103


Incubation projects waiting for TOC sponsors

( 3 Months ) https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303


Apologies if my words have hurt anyone. My intention was only to point out the unfair treatment and I am not suggesting that this may have happened intentionally. However, I do want to emphasize the flows in the existing process which lead to this type of issues.


On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 6:39 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

I think it could be good to acknowledge the frustration.


Absolutely - acknowledged!

And believe me we really are working to try to address this. Getting the SIGs set up is intended to help us scale, and we are working to streamline the process, document it and make it more transparent, and set better time expectations.

As one example, the current suggestion we’re working on includes the project presentation for Sandbox being done to a SIG rather than to the whole TOC.

I really do feel bad for maintainers who have been trying to get attention to their projects while we’re working through this. Sorry.

Speaking of which, if you are waiting to progress your project’s proposal, please check its status on the backlog and let Amye know if anything looks wrong or is missing.

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



On 10 Jan 2020, at 15:23, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

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.

https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/331


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










3221 - 3240 of 7342