Date   

Re: Point of process

Erin Boyd
 

Amen!


On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 4:26 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I believe the issue here is simple.  The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret.  End of story.  We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what.  But please do
it in the OPEN.  The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:
>>
>> First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
>
>
> Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.
>
> Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.
>
>> I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.
>
>
> If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
>>
>> To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
>
> I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
>>
>> Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).
>
>
> Thank you for surfacing in a PR.
>
> The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.
>
>> Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.
>
>
> I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.
>
> And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.
>
> It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.
>
>
>>
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>> On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
>>
>> During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
>> the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
>> vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
>> submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
>> here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717
>>
>> The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
>> mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
>> discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
>> project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
>> significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
>> released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
>> fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
>> name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
>> community and CNCF support.
>>
>> As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
>> accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
>> in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.
>>
>> Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
>> secretive guidelines.
>>
>> I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
>> treated equally and fairly.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>




Re: Point of process

Chris Wright
 

Yes, I completely agree

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 6:26 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I believe the issue here is simple.  The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret.  End of story.  We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what.  But please do
it in the OPEN.  The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:
>>
>> First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
>
>
> Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.
>
> Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.
>
>> I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.
>
>
> If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
>>
>> To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
>
> I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
>>
>> Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).
>
>
> Thank you for surfacing in a PR.
>
> The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.
>
>> Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.
>
>
> I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.
>
> And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.
>
> It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.
>
>
>>
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>> On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
>>
>> During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
>> the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
>> vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
>> submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
>> here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717
>>
>> The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
>> mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
>> discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
>> project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
>> significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
>> released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
>> fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
>> name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
>> community and CNCF support.
>>
>> As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
>> accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
>> in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.
>>
>> Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
>> secretive guidelines.
>>
>> I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
>> treated equally and fairly.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -chris
>>
>>
>>
>>


Re: Point of process

alexis richardson
 

"kick" --> "kick off", obv ;-)

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:23 AM alexis richardson via Lists.Cncf.Io
<alexis=weave.works@...> wrote:

I believe the issue here is simple. The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret. End of story. We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what. But please do
it in the OPEN. The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:

First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.

Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry. What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.

Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.

I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.

If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."

To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal. It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF. It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?

Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).

Thank you for surfacing in a PR.

The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.

Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.

I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.

And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.

It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.



Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:

During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris





Re: Point of process

Davanum Srinivas
 

Heartily seconded! 

-- Dims


On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 6:23 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I believe the issue here is simple.  The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret.  End of story.  We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what.  But please do
it in the OPEN.  The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:
>>
>> First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
>
>
> Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.
>
> Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.
>
>> I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.
>
>
> If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
>>
>> To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
>
> I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
>>
>> Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).
>
>
> Thank you for surfacing in a PR.
>
> The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.
>
>> Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.
>
>
> I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.
>
> And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.
>
> It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.
>
>
>>
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>> On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
>>
>> During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
>> the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
>> vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
>> submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
>> here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717
>>
>> The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
>> mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
>> discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
>> project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
>> significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
>> released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
>> fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
>> name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
>> community and CNCF support.
>>
>> As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
>> accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
>> in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.
>>
>> Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
>> secretive guidelines.
>>
>> I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
>> treated equally and fairly.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>





--
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims


Re: Point of process

alexis richardson
 

I believe the issue here is simple. The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret. End of story. We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what. But please do
it in the OPEN. The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:

First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.

Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry. What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.

Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.

I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.

If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."

To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal. It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF. It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?

Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).

Thank you for surfacing in a PR.

The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.

Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.

I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.

And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.

It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.



Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:

During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris




Re: Point of process

Chris Wright
 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points: 
  • First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.

Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.

Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.

  • I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.

If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
  • To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
  • Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to). 

Thank you for surfacing in a PR.

The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.

Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.

I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.

And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.

It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.



Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris





Re: CNCF Hub

Uma Mukkara
 

Thumbs up on the Conf Hub from the Litmus community. The community has a hub (https://hub.litmuschaos.io) for chaos experiments of Kubernetes applications. It will be nice to see the community coming to hub and finding various types of resources such as operators, charts, chaos experiments and (perhaps) data migration plugins and more..

Best,
Uma.


Re: Point of process

Vinod
 

Thank you for raising this Chris.

I have contacted the TOC multiple times on unfair treatment and inequality, especially when it comes to TOC sponsorship and prioritisation even for sandbox submissions. From my experience, it's based on TOC intuition, personal or professional interest and the project merits or CNCF community interests are not always considered. Multiple other submissions are also waiting for TOC's mercy/reply. I have also requested the criteria/quality metrics for TOC's sponsorship, for which a proper answer wasn't given. It would be greatly appreciated if TOC could follow the CNCF principles (Fast is better than slow, Open, Fair, etc.)

If TOC is doing the right thing for the community I think it's also very important to be open and share details. Please also respond to community concerns.

Thanks,

Vinod

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points: 
  • First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
  • I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago. To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space). Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to). 
Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.

Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris





Re: Point of process

Liz Rice
 

Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points: 
  • First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
  • I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago. To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space). Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to). 
Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.

Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:

During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris





Point of process

Chris Wright
 

During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris


Re: CNCF Hub

Matt Farina
 

Erin,

Is there a reason we don't want to create a PR for sandbox so it gets going in the correct direction and follows the process of being assigned first to a SIG?

I was hoping to have a conversation with the TOC, CNCF staff, and other projects needing/having a hub (e.g., Falco and OPA) first for two reasons:
  1. The CNCF provides services for projects. Services for projects are part of the fostering and supporting work the CNCF does to help them. I wanted to see if this fits better as a project itself or as a service to support projects alongside the other services already provided.
  2. I wanted to make sure the other CNCF projects needing/having a hub were looped into this so they had an opportunity to evaluate and weight in on this. The existing conversations did not have enough CNCF project coverage. Hearing their feedback will help shape direction and may even influence point 1.

If the conversations next week suggest a project proposal is needed then I would argue it's a good time for that. Existing work to support projects from the CNCF did not need or rush to project proposals. I think we can be patient so that more people whom this impacts can come up to speed.

Of course, this is just my 2 cents.

Regards,
Matt

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Erin Boyd wrote:
Well it appears I have stuck my foot in my mouth...so apologies.
It looks like this is the most broad list we have for the CNCF community.

Can we safely assume that all the SIGs are also subscribed here?

Is there a reason we don't want to create a PR for sandbox so it gets going in the correct direction and follows the process of being assigned first to a SIG? Github seems like the most logical place to get the ball rolling imo.

Erin


On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:12 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Erin,

Which public mailing list are you referring to?

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 12:06 PM, Erin Boyd wrote:
Kris/Matt,
Can we please move all these discussions to the public mailing list and/or a PR for sandbox? Now that the repo has been made public, let's invite the other interested parties that aren't necessarily subscribed to the TOC mailing list to participate.
Thanks,
Erin


On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Matt - yes that is the point of the Monday call at 9am Pacific

Would you or anyone else care to join? 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:14 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Kris,

Did the Falco and OPA folks want to talk about this together prior to coming to a CNCF call? Possibly to prepare for the CNCF call.

- Matt

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 10:55 AM, Kris Nova wrote:
So we set up a call next Monday morning with Falco + OPA to discuss this. Looks like a lot of this has been happening without our communities involved. Should we all join forces for a CNCF wide call here?

Right now we are scheduled for Monday the 16th at 9am Pacific 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:26 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi <jj@...> wrote:
This is nice! 
🙌🏽🙇🏽‍♂️

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:48 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Thanks Dan & Matt for getting this public! 

We had a brief discussion on this in the closed TOC call yesterday, and it’s clear that many TOC members have questions and ideas around this. We are suggesting a public call with Dan, Matt, Gerred and whoever else are the interested parties (possibly in next week’s TOC meeting slot). The strategy behind the distribution and discovery of artifacts is extremely important for the whole community. 


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



On 11 Mar 2020, at 13:05, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Excited to see this. The sandbox criteria (https://www.cncf.io/sandbox-projects/) (point 3 specifically) states:

3. Projects commissioned or sanctioned by the CNCF, including initial code for CNCF WG collaborations, and “experimental” projects

Following this, I would suggest to the TOC we would proceed with moving this through the SIG process as a Sandbox project. Where I would like to understand is what is the graduation pathway for this - does it graduate to being a CNCF Service? An incubating project like any other? Furthermore, if it's a CNCF service, does it follow different requirements to leave sandbox?

I look forward to getting involved in the development and governance of this project. Thanks Dan, Matt, Cynthia, Sergio, and the Operator Framework / Helm teams for the discussion back at KubeCon!

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:35 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Hello folks, I want to share that the CNCF Hub which was alluded to in the last TOC call is now public. You can find the source at https://github.com/cncf/hub.  From the README:

Hub is a web-based application that enables finding, installing, and publishing packages and configurations for CNCF projects. For example, this could include Helm charts, Falco configurations, and Open Policy Agent (OPA) policies.

Discovering artifacts to use with CNCF projects can be difficult. If every CNCF project that needs to share artifacts creates its own Hub this creates a fair amount of repeat work for each project and a fractured experience for those trying to find the artifacts to consume. The CNCF Hub attempts to solve that by providing a single experience for consumers that any CNCF project can leverage.

The project, accessible at https://hub.cncf.io, is currently in development in a pre-alpha state. Support for Helm charts is in development with plans to support more projects to follow. Pull requests, especially those to support other CNCF projects, are welcome.


I look forward to some healthy discussion over the technical bits along with how to proceed positionally with the project. For example, is this something that should be a sandbox project or a service from the CNCF? Or, something else?

For those interested in some more history and context...

At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon SD, last November, a group of us got together. That include Dan Kohn along with representatives from the Operator Framewok, KUDO, and Helm. Note, both the Operator Framework and KUDO are projects that were and are proposed for the CNCF.

After that meeting I was asked to write an initial specification to kick things off. You can read there here. The specification was started to be turned into reality by Dan through Cynthia and Sergio.

For those who might wonder why this was not more public sooner... the plan was to do so but the virus impact on operations, like the movement of conferences, has impacted the schedule.

I want to thank Dan for bringing people together around this topic and working to make the idea a reality.

I'm happy to try to answer any questions. But, as I have only been involved during parts of this process (and often to a limited extent outside of the spec and initial meeting) I may have to defer to others for answers.

Regards,
Matt Farina







--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105



--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105





--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat


eboyd@...   





--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat


eboyd@...   




Re: CNCF Hub

Devdatta Kulkarni
 

This is an exciting development.

Having a central repository/hub for all the cloud-native artifacts makes sense.

-Devdatta



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Matt Farina via Lists.Cncf.Io <matt=mattfarina.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 2:35 PM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] CNCF Hub
 
Hello folks, I want to share that the CNCF Hub which was alluded to in the last TOC call is now public. You can find the source at https://github.com/cncf/hub.  From the README:

Hub is a web-based application that enables finding, installing, and publishing packages and configurations for CNCF projects. For example, this could include Helm charts, Falco configurations, and Open Policy Agent (OPA) policies.

Discovering artifacts to use with CNCF projects can be difficult. If every CNCF project that needs to share artifacts creates its own Hub this creates a fair amount of repeat work for each project and a fractured experience for those trying to find the artifacts to consume. The CNCF Hub attempts to solve that by providing a single experience for consumers that any CNCF project can leverage.

The project, accessible at https://hub.cncf.io, is currently in development in a pre-alpha state. Support for Helm charts is in development with plans to support more projects to follow. Pull requests, especially those to support other CNCF projects, are welcome.


I look forward to some healthy discussion over the technical bits along with how to proceed positionally with the project. For example, is this something that should be a sandbox project or a service from the CNCF? Or, something else?

For those interested in some more history and context...

At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon SD, last November, a group of us got together. That include Dan Kohn along with representatives from the Operator Framewok, KUDO, and Helm. Note, both the Operator Framework and KUDO are projects that were and are proposed for the CNCF.

After that meeting I was asked to write an initial specification to kick things off. You can read there here. The specification was started to be turned into reality by Dan through Cynthia and Sergio.

For those who might wonder why this was not more public sooner... the plan was to do so but the virus impact on operations, like the movement of conferences, has impacted the schedule.

I want to thank Dan for bringing people together around this topic and working to make the idea a reality.

I'm happy to try to answer any questions. But, as I have only been involved during parts of this process (and often to a limited extent outside of the spec and initial meeting) I may have to defer to others for answers.

Regards,
Matt Farina


Re: CNCF Hub

Erin Boyd
 

Well it appears I have stuck my foot in my mouth...so apologies.
It looks like this is the most broad list we have for the CNCF community.

Can we safely assume that all the SIGs are also subscribed here?

Is there a reason we don't want to create a PR for sandbox so it gets going in the correct direction and follows the process of being assigned first to a SIG? Github seems like the most logical place to get the ball rolling imo.

Erin


On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:12 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Erin,

Which public mailing list are you referring to?

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 12:06 PM, Erin Boyd wrote:
Kris/Matt,
Can we please move all these discussions to the public mailing list and/or a PR for sandbox? Now that the repo has been made public, let's invite the other interested parties that aren't necessarily subscribed to the TOC mailing list to participate.
Thanks,
Erin


On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Matt - yes that is the point of the Monday call at 9am Pacific

Would you or anyone else care to join? 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:14 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Kris,

Did the Falco and OPA folks want to talk about this together prior to coming to a CNCF call? Possibly to prepare for the CNCF call.

- Matt

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 10:55 AM, Kris Nova wrote:
So we set up a call next Monday morning with Falco + OPA to discuss this. Looks like a lot of this has been happening without our communities involved. Should we all join forces for a CNCF wide call here?

Right now we are scheduled for Monday the 16th at 9am Pacific 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:26 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi <jj@...> wrote:
This is nice! 
🙌🏽🙇🏽‍♂️

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:48 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Thanks Dan & Matt for getting this public! 

We had a brief discussion on this in the closed TOC call yesterday, and it’s clear that many TOC members have questions and ideas around this. We are suggesting a public call with Dan, Matt, Gerred and whoever else are the interested parties (possibly in next week’s TOC meeting slot). The strategy behind the distribution and discovery of artifacts is extremely important for the whole community. 


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



On 11 Mar 2020, at 13:05, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Excited to see this. The sandbox criteria (https://www.cncf.io/sandbox-projects/) (point 3 specifically) states:

3. Projects commissioned or sanctioned by the CNCF, including initial code for CNCF WG collaborations, and “experimental” projects

Following this, I would suggest to the TOC we would proceed with moving this through the SIG process as a Sandbox project. Where I would like to understand is what is the graduation pathway for this - does it graduate to being a CNCF Service? An incubating project like any other? Furthermore, if it's a CNCF service, does it follow different requirements to leave sandbox?

I look forward to getting involved in the development and governance of this project. Thanks Dan, Matt, Cynthia, Sergio, and the Operator Framework / Helm teams for the discussion back at KubeCon!

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:35 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Hello folks, I want to share that the CNCF Hub which was alluded to in the last TOC call is now public. You can find the source at https://github.com/cncf/hub.  From the README:

Hub is a web-based application that enables finding, installing, and publishing packages and configurations for CNCF projects. For example, this could include Helm charts, Falco configurations, and Open Policy Agent (OPA) policies.

Discovering artifacts to use with CNCF projects can be difficult. If every CNCF project that needs to share artifacts creates its own Hub this creates a fair amount of repeat work for each project and a fractured experience for those trying to find the artifacts to consume. The CNCF Hub attempts to solve that by providing a single experience for consumers that any CNCF project can leverage.

The project, accessible at https://hub.cncf.io, is currently in development in a pre-alpha state. Support for Helm charts is in development with plans to support more projects to follow. Pull requests, especially those to support other CNCF projects, are welcome.


I look forward to some healthy discussion over the technical bits along with how to proceed positionally with the project. For example, is this something that should be a sandbox project or a service from the CNCF? Or, something else?

For those interested in some more history and context...

At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon SD, last November, a group of us got together. That include Dan Kohn along with representatives from the Operator Framewok, KUDO, and Helm. Note, both the Operator Framework and KUDO are projects that were and are proposed for the CNCF.

After that meeting I was asked to write an initial specification to kick things off. You can read there here. The specification was started to be turned into reality by Dan through Cynthia and Sergio.

For those who might wonder why this was not more public sooner... the plan was to do so but the virus impact on operations, like the movement of conferences, has impacted the schedule.

I want to thank Dan for bringing people together around this topic and working to make the idea a reality.

I'm happy to try to answer any questions. But, as I have only been involved during parts of this process (and often to a limited extent outside of the spec and initial meeting) I may have to defer to others for answers.

Regards,
Matt Farina







--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105



--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105





--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat


eboyd@...   





--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...   


Re: CNCF Hub

Kris Nova <kris.nova@...>
 

Happy to move this anywhere - can you suggest a place that would be more appropriate? 


On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 9:07 AM Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
Kris/Matt,
Can we please move all these discussions to the public mailing list and/or a PR for sandbox? Now that the repo has been made public, let's invite the other interested parties that aren't necessarily subscribed to the TOC mailing list to participate.
Thanks,
Erin


On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Matt - yes that is the point of the Monday call at 9am Pacific

Would you or anyone else care to join? 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:14 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Kris,

Did the Falco and OPA folks want to talk about this together prior to coming to a CNCF call? Possibly to prepare for the CNCF call.

- Matt

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 10:55 AM, Kris Nova wrote:
So we set up a call next Monday morning with Falco + OPA to discuss this. Looks like a lot of this has been happening without our communities involved. Should we all join forces for a CNCF wide call here?

Right now we are scheduled for Monday the 16th at 9am Pacific 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:26 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi <jj@...> wrote:
This is nice! 
🙌🏽🙇🏽‍♂️

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:48 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Thanks Dan & Matt for getting this public! 

We had a brief discussion on this in the closed TOC call yesterday, and it’s clear that many TOC members have questions and ideas around this. We are suggesting a public call with Dan, Matt, Gerred and whoever else are the interested parties (possibly in next week’s TOC meeting slot). The strategy behind the distribution and discovery of artifacts is extremely important for the whole community. 


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



On 11 Mar 2020, at 13:05, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Excited to see this. The sandbox criteria (https://www.cncf.io/sandbox-projects/) (point 3 specifically) states:

3. Projects commissioned or sanctioned by the CNCF, including initial code for CNCF WG collaborations, and “experimental” projects

Following this, I would suggest to the TOC we would proceed with moving this through the SIG process as a Sandbox project. Where I would like to understand is what is the graduation pathway for this - does it graduate to being a CNCF Service? An incubating project like any other? Furthermore, if it's a CNCF service, does it follow different requirements to leave sandbox?

I look forward to getting involved in the development and governance of this project. Thanks Dan, Matt, Cynthia, Sergio, and the Operator Framework / Helm teams for the discussion back at KubeCon!

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:35 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Hello folks, I want to share that the CNCF Hub which was alluded to in the last TOC call is now public. You can find the source at https://github.com/cncf/hub.  From the README:

Hub is a web-based application that enables finding, installing, and publishing packages and configurations for CNCF projects. For example, this could include Helm charts, Falco configurations, and Open Policy Agent (OPA) policies.

Discovering artifacts to use with CNCF projects can be difficult. If every CNCF project that needs to share artifacts creates its own Hub this creates a fair amount of repeat work for each project and a fractured experience for those trying to find the artifacts to consume. The CNCF Hub attempts to solve that by providing a single experience for consumers that any CNCF project can leverage.

The project, accessible at https://hub.cncf.io, is currently in development in a pre-alpha state. Support for Helm charts is in development with plans to support more projects to follow. Pull requests, especially those to support other CNCF projects, are welcome.


I look forward to some healthy discussion over the technical bits along with how to proceed positionally with the project. For example, is this something that should be a sandbox project or a service from the CNCF? Or, something else?

For those interested in some more history and context...

At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon SD, last November, a group of us got together. That include Dan Kohn along with representatives from the Operator Framewok, KUDO, and Helm. Note, both the Operator Framework and KUDO are projects that were and are proposed for the CNCF.

After that meeting I was asked to write an initial specification to kick things off. You can read there here. The specification was started to be turned into reality by Dan through Cynthia and Sergio.

For those who might wonder why this was not more public sooner... the plan was to do so but the virus impact on operations, like the movement of conferences, has impacted the schedule.

I want to thank Dan for bringing people together around this topic and working to make the idea a reality.

I'm happy to try to answer any questions. But, as I have only been involved during parts of this process (and often to a limited extent outside of the spec and initial meeting) I may have to defer to others for answers.

Regards,
Matt Farina







--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105



--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105



--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...   



--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


Re: CNCF Hub

Matt Farina
 

Erin,

Which public mailing list are you referring to?

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 12:06 PM, Erin Boyd wrote:
Kris/Matt,
Can we please move all these discussions to the public mailing list and/or a PR for sandbox? Now that the repo has been made public, let's invite the other interested parties that aren't necessarily subscribed to the TOC mailing list to participate.
Thanks,
Erin


On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Matt - yes that is the point of the Monday call at 9am Pacific

Would you or anyone else care to join? 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:14 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Kris,

Did the Falco and OPA folks want to talk about this together prior to coming to a CNCF call? Possibly to prepare for the CNCF call.

- Matt

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 10:55 AM, Kris Nova wrote:
So we set up a call next Monday morning with Falco + OPA to discuss this. Looks like a lot of this has been happening without our communities involved. Should we all join forces for a CNCF wide call here?

Right now we are scheduled for Monday the 16th at 9am Pacific 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:26 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi <jj@...> wrote:
This is nice! 
🙌🏽🙇🏽‍♂️

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:48 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Thanks Dan & Matt for getting this public! 

We had a brief discussion on this in the closed TOC call yesterday, and it’s clear that many TOC members have questions and ideas around this. We are suggesting a public call with Dan, Matt, Gerred and whoever else are the interested parties (possibly in next week’s TOC meeting slot). The strategy behind the distribution and discovery of artifacts is extremely important for the whole community. 


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



On 11 Mar 2020, at 13:05, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Excited to see this. The sandbox criteria (https://www.cncf.io/sandbox-projects/) (point 3 specifically) states:

3. Projects commissioned or sanctioned by the CNCF, including initial code for CNCF WG collaborations, and “experimental” projects

Following this, I would suggest to the TOC we would proceed with moving this through the SIG process as a Sandbox project. Where I would like to understand is what is the graduation pathway for this - does it graduate to being a CNCF Service? An incubating project like any other? Furthermore, if it's a CNCF service, does it follow different requirements to leave sandbox?

I look forward to getting involved in the development and governance of this project. Thanks Dan, Matt, Cynthia, Sergio, and the Operator Framework / Helm teams for the discussion back at KubeCon!

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:35 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Hello folks, I want to share that the CNCF Hub which was alluded to in the last TOC call is now public. You can find the source at https://github.com/cncf/hub.  From the README:

Hub is a web-based application that enables finding, installing, and publishing packages and configurations for CNCF projects. For example, this could include Helm charts, Falco configurations, and Open Policy Agent (OPA) policies.

Discovering artifacts to use with CNCF projects can be difficult. If every CNCF project that needs to share artifacts creates its own Hub this creates a fair amount of repeat work for each project and a fractured experience for those trying to find the artifacts to consume. The CNCF Hub attempts to solve that by providing a single experience for consumers that any CNCF project can leverage.

The project, accessible at https://hub.cncf.io, is currently in development in a pre-alpha state. Support for Helm charts is in development with plans to support more projects to follow. Pull requests, especially those to support other CNCF projects, are welcome.


I look forward to some healthy discussion over the technical bits along with how to proceed positionally with the project. For example, is this something that should be a sandbox project or a service from the CNCF? Or, something else?

For those interested in some more history and context...

At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon SD, last November, a group of us got together. That include Dan Kohn along with representatives from the Operator Framewok, KUDO, and Helm. Note, both the Operator Framework and KUDO are projects that were and are proposed for the CNCF.

After that meeting I was asked to write an initial specification to kick things off. You can read there here. The specification was started to be turned into reality by Dan through Cynthia and Sergio.

For those who might wonder why this was not more public sooner... the plan was to do so but the virus impact on operations, like the movement of conferences, has impacted the schedule.

I want to thank Dan for bringing people together around this topic and working to make the idea a reality.

I'm happy to try to answer any questions. But, as I have only been involved during parts of this process (and often to a limited extent outside of the spec and initial meeting) I may have to defer to others for answers.

Regards,
Matt Farina







--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105



--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105





--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat


eboyd@...   




Re: CNCF Hub

Erin Boyd
 

Kris/Matt,
Can we please move all these discussions to the public mailing list and/or a PR for sandbox? Now that the repo has been made public, let's invite the other interested parties that aren't necessarily subscribed to the TOC mailing list to participate.
Thanks,
Erin


On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Matt - yes that is the point of the Monday call at 9am Pacific

Would you or anyone else care to join? 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:14 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Kris,

Did the Falco and OPA folks want to talk about this together prior to coming to a CNCF call? Possibly to prepare for the CNCF call.

- Matt

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 10:55 AM, Kris Nova wrote:
So we set up a call next Monday morning with Falco + OPA to discuss this. Looks like a lot of this has been happening without our communities involved. Should we all join forces for a CNCF wide call here?

Right now we are scheduled for Monday the 16th at 9am Pacific 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:26 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi <jj@...> wrote:
This is nice! 
🙌🏽🙇🏽‍♂️

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:48 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Thanks Dan & Matt for getting this public! 

We had a brief discussion on this in the closed TOC call yesterday, and it’s clear that many TOC members have questions and ideas around this. We are suggesting a public call with Dan, Matt, Gerred and whoever else are the interested parties (possibly in next week’s TOC meeting slot). The strategy behind the distribution and discovery of artifacts is extremely important for the whole community. 


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



On 11 Mar 2020, at 13:05, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Excited to see this. The sandbox criteria (https://www.cncf.io/sandbox-projects/) (point 3 specifically) states:

3. Projects commissioned or sanctioned by the CNCF, including initial code for CNCF WG collaborations, and “experimental” projects

Following this, I would suggest to the TOC we would proceed with moving this through the SIG process as a Sandbox project. Where I would like to understand is what is the graduation pathway for this - does it graduate to being a CNCF Service? An incubating project like any other? Furthermore, if it's a CNCF service, does it follow different requirements to leave sandbox?

I look forward to getting involved in the development and governance of this project. Thanks Dan, Matt, Cynthia, Sergio, and the Operator Framework / Helm teams for the discussion back at KubeCon!

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:35 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Hello folks, I want to share that the CNCF Hub which was alluded to in the last TOC call is now public. You can find the source at https://github.com/cncf/hub.  From the README:

Hub is a web-based application that enables finding, installing, and publishing packages and configurations for CNCF projects. For example, this could include Helm charts, Falco configurations, and Open Policy Agent (OPA) policies.

Discovering artifacts to use with CNCF projects can be difficult. If every CNCF project that needs to share artifacts creates its own Hub this creates a fair amount of repeat work for each project and a fractured experience for those trying to find the artifacts to consume. The CNCF Hub attempts to solve that by providing a single experience for consumers that any CNCF project can leverage.

The project, accessible at https://hub.cncf.io, is currently in development in a pre-alpha state. Support for Helm charts is in development with plans to support more projects to follow. Pull requests, especially those to support other CNCF projects, are welcome.


I look forward to some healthy discussion over the technical bits along with how to proceed positionally with the project. For example, is this something that should be a sandbox project or a service from the CNCF? Or, something else?

For those interested in some more history and context...

At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon SD, last November, a group of us got together. That include Dan Kohn along with representatives from the Operator Framewok, KUDO, and Helm. Note, both the Operator Framework and KUDO are projects that were and are proposed for the CNCF.

After that meeting I was asked to write an initial specification to kick things off. You can read there here. The specification was started to be turned into reality by Dan through Cynthia and Sergio.

For those who might wonder why this was not more public sooner... the plan was to do so but the virus impact on operations, like the movement of conferences, has impacted the schedule.

I want to thank Dan for bringing people together around this topic and working to make the idea a reality.

I'm happy to try to answer any questions. But, as I have only been involved during parts of this process (and often to a limited extent outside of the spec and initial meeting) I may have to defer to others for answers.

Regards,
Matt Farina







--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105



--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105



--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...   


Re: CNCF Hub

Kris Nova <kris.nova@...>
 

Matt - yes that is the point of the Monday call at 9am Pacific

Would you or anyone else care to join? 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:14 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Kris,

Did the Falco and OPA folks want to talk about this together prior to coming to a CNCF call? Possibly to prepare for the CNCF call.

- Matt

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 10:55 AM, Kris Nova wrote:
So we set up a call next Monday morning with Falco + OPA to discuss this. Looks like a lot of this has been happening without our communities involved. Should we all join forces for a CNCF wide call here?

Right now we are scheduled for Monday the 16th at 9am Pacific 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:26 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi <jj@...> wrote:
This is nice! 
🙌🏽🙇🏽‍♂️

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:48 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Thanks Dan & Matt for getting this public! 

We had a brief discussion on this in the closed TOC call yesterday, and it’s clear that many TOC members have questions and ideas around this. We are suggesting a public call with Dan, Matt, Gerred and whoever else are the interested parties (possibly in next week’s TOC meeting slot). The strategy behind the distribution and discovery of artifacts is extremely important for the whole community. 


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



On 11 Mar 2020, at 13:05, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Excited to see this. The sandbox criteria (https://www.cncf.io/sandbox-projects/) (point 3 specifically) states:

3. Projects commissioned or sanctioned by the CNCF, including initial code for CNCF WG collaborations, and “experimental” projects

Following this, I would suggest to the TOC we would proceed with moving this through the SIG process as a Sandbox project. Where I would like to understand is what is the graduation pathway for this - does it graduate to being a CNCF Service? An incubating project like any other? Furthermore, if it's a CNCF service, does it follow different requirements to leave sandbox?

I look forward to getting involved in the development and governance of this project. Thanks Dan, Matt, Cynthia, Sergio, and the Operator Framework / Helm teams for the discussion back at KubeCon!

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:35 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Hello folks, I want to share that the CNCF Hub which was alluded to in the last TOC call is now public. You can find the source at https://github.com/cncf/hub.  From the README:

Hub is a web-based application that enables finding, installing, and publishing packages and configurations for CNCF projects. For example, this could include Helm charts, Falco configurations, and Open Policy Agent (OPA) policies.

Discovering artifacts to use with CNCF projects can be difficult. If every CNCF project that needs to share artifacts creates its own Hub this creates a fair amount of repeat work for each project and a fractured experience for those trying to find the artifacts to consume. The CNCF Hub attempts to solve that by providing a single experience for consumers that any CNCF project can leverage.

The project, accessible at https://hub.cncf.io, is currently in development in a pre-alpha state. Support for Helm charts is in development with plans to support more projects to follow. Pull requests, especially those to support other CNCF projects, are welcome.


I look forward to some healthy discussion over the technical bits along with how to proceed positionally with the project. For example, is this something that should be a sandbox project or a service from the CNCF? Or, something else?

For those interested in some more history and context...

At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon SD, last November, a group of us got together. That include Dan Kohn along with representatives from the Operator Framewok, KUDO, and Helm. Note, both the Operator Framework and KUDO are projects that were and are proposed for the CNCF.

After that meeting I was asked to write an initial specification to kick things off. You can read there here. The specification was started to be turned into reality by Dan through Cynthia and Sergio.

For those who might wonder why this was not more public sooner... the plan was to do so but the virus impact on operations, like the movement of conferences, has impacted the schedule.

I want to thank Dan for bringing people together around this topic and working to make the idea a reality.

I'm happy to try to answer any questions. But, as I have only been involved during parts of this process (and often to a limited extent outside of the spec and initial meeting) I may have to defer to others for answers.

Regards,
Matt Farina







--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105



--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


Re: CNCF Hub

Matt Farina
 

Kris,

Did the Falco and OPA folks want to talk about this together prior to coming to a CNCF call? Possibly to prepare for the CNCF call.

- Matt

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 10:55 AM, Kris Nova wrote:
So we set up a call next Monday morning with Falco + OPA to discuss this. Looks like a lot of this has been happening without our communities involved. Should we all join forces for a CNCF wide call here?

Right now we are scheduled for Monday the 16th at 9am Pacific 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:26 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi <jj@...> wrote:
This is nice! 
🙌🏽🙇🏽‍♂️

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:48 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Thanks Dan & Matt for getting this public! 

We had a brief discussion on this in the closed TOC call yesterday, and it’s clear that many TOC members have questions and ideas around this. We are suggesting a public call with Dan, Matt, Gerred and whoever else are the interested parties (possibly in next week’s TOC meeting slot). The strategy behind the distribution and discovery of artifacts is extremely important for the whole community. 


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



On 11 Mar 2020, at 13:05, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Excited to see this. The sandbox criteria (https://www.cncf.io/sandbox-projects/) (point 3 specifically) states:

3. Projects commissioned or sanctioned by the CNCF, including initial code for CNCF WG collaborations, and “experimental” projects

Following this, I would suggest to the TOC we would proceed with moving this through the SIG process as a Sandbox project. Where I would like to understand is what is the graduation pathway for this - does it graduate to being a CNCF Service? An incubating project like any other? Furthermore, if it's a CNCF service, does it follow different requirements to leave sandbox?

I look forward to getting involved in the development and governance of this project. Thanks Dan, Matt, Cynthia, Sergio, and the Operator Framework / Helm teams for the discussion back at KubeCon!

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:35 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Hello folks, I want to share that the CNCF Hub which was alluded to in the last TOC call is now public. You can find the source at https://github.com/cncf/hub.  From the README:

Hub is a web-based application that enables finding, installing, and publishing packages and configurations for CNCF projects. For example, this could include Helm charts, Falco configurations, and Open Policy Agent (OPA) policies.

Discovering artifacts to use with CNCF projects can be difficult. If every CNCF project that needs to share artifacts creates its own Hub this creates a fair amount of repeat work for each project and a fractured experience for those trying to find the artifacts to consume. The CNCF Hub attempts to solve that by providing a single experience for consumers that any CNCF project can leverage.

The project, accessible at https://hub.cncf.io, is currently in development in a pre-alpha state. Support for Helm charts is in development with plans to support more projects to follow. Pull requests, especially those to support other CNCF projects, are welcome.


I look forward to some healthy discussion over the technical bits along with how to proceed positionally with the project. For example, is this something that should be a sandbox project or a service from the CNCF? Or, something else?

For those interested in some more history and context...

At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon SD, last November, a group of us got together. That include Dan Kohn along with representatives from the Operator Framewok, KUDO, and Helm. Note, both the Operator Framework and KUDO are projects that were and are proposed for the CNCF.

After that meeting I was asked to write an initial specification to kick things off. You can read there here. The specification was started to be turned into reality by Dan through Cynthia and Sergio.

For those who might wonder why this was not more public sooner... the plan was to do so but the virus impact on operations, like the movement of conferences, has impacted the schedule.

I want to thank Dan for bringing people together around this topic and working to make the idea a reality.

I'm happy to try to answer any questions. But, as I have only been involved during parts of this process (and often to a limited extent outside of the spec and initial meeting) I may have to defer to others for answers.

Regards,
Matt Farina







--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


Re: CNCF Hub

Gerred Dillon
 

I'm available then and also during the TOC meeting. If you decide to expand Monday's meeting (or would like me to attend even if it's not expanded), I'd love an invite!


On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:57 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
So we set up a call next Monday morning with Falco + OPA to discuss this. Looks like a lot of this has been happening without our communities involved. Should we all join forces for a CNCF wide call here?

Right now we are scheduled for Monday the 16th at 9am Pacific 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:26 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi <jj@...> wrote:
This is nice! 
🙌🏽🙇🏽‍♂️

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:48 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Thanks Dan & Matt for getting this public! 

We had a brief discussion on this in the closed TOC call yesterday, and it’s clear that many TOC members have questions and ideas around this. We are suggesting a public call with Dan, Matt, Gerred and whoever else are the interested parties (possibly in next week’s TOC meeting slot). The strategy behind the distribution and discovery of artifacts is extremely important for the whole community. 


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



On 11 Mar 2020, at 13:05, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Excited to see this. The sandbox criteria (https://www.cncf.io/sandbox-projects/) (point 3 specifically) states:

3. Projects commissioned or sanctioned by the CNCF, including initial code for CNCF WG collaborations, and “experimental” projects

Following this, I would suggest to the TOC we would proceed with moving this through the SIG process as a Sandbox project. Where I would like to understand is what is the graduation pathway for this - does it graduate to being a CNCF Service? An incubating project like any other? Furthermore, if it's a CNCF service, does it follow different requirements to leave sandbox?

I look forward to getting involved in the development and governance of this project. Thanks Dan, Matt, Cynthia, Sergio, and the Operator Framework / Helm teams for the discussion back at KubeCon!

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:35 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Hello folks, I want to share that the CNCF Hub which was alluded to in the last TOC call is now public. You can find the source at https://github.com/cncf/hub.  From the README:

Hub is a web-based application that enables finding, installing, and publishing packages and configurations for CNCF projects. For example, this could include Helm charts, Falco configurations, and Open Policy Agent (OPA) policies.

Discovering artifacts to use with CNCF projects can be difficult. If every CNCF project that needs to share artifacts creates its own Hub this creates a fair amount of repeat work for each project and a fractured experience for those trying to find the artifacts to consume. The CNCF Hub attempts to solve that by providing a single experience for consumers that any CNCF project can leverage.

The project, accessible at https://hub.cncf.io, is currently in development in a pre-alpha state. Support for Helm charts is in development with plans to support more projects to follow. Pull requests, especially those to support other CNCF projects, are welcome.


I look forward to some healthy discussion over the technical bits along with how to proceed positionally with the project. For example, is this something that should be a sandbox project or a service from the CNCF? Or, something else?

For those interested in some more history and context...

At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon SD, last November, a group of us got together. That include Dan Kohn along with representatives from the Operator Framewok, KUDO, and Helm. Note, both the Operator Framework and KUDO are projects that were and are proposed for the CNCF.

After that meeting I was asked to write an initial specification to kick things off. You can read there here. The specification was started to be turned into reality by Dan through Cynthia and Sergio.

For those who might wonder why this was not more public sooner... the plan was to do so but the virus impact on operations, like the movement of conferences, has impacted the schedule.

I want to thank Dan for bringing people together around this topic and working to make the idea a reality.

I'm happy to try to answer any questions. But, as I have only been involved during parts of this process (and often to a limited extent outside of the spec and initial meeting) I may have to defer to others for answers.

Regards,
Matt Farina





--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


Re: CNCF Hub

Kris Nova <kris.nova@...>
 

So we set up a call next Monday morning with Falco + OPA to discuss this. Looks like a lot of this has been happening without our communities involved. Should we all join forces for a CNCF wide call here?

Right now we are scheduled for Monday the 16th at 9am Pacific 


On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:26 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi <jj@...> wrote:
This is nice! 
🙌🏽🙇🏽‍♂️

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:48 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Thanks Dan & Matt for getting this public! 

We had a brief discussion on this in the closed TOC call yesterday, and it’s clear that many TOC members have questions and ideas around this. We are suggesting a public call with Dan, Matt, Gerred and whoever else are the interested parties (possibly in next week’s TOC meeting slot). The strategy behind the distribution and discovery of artifacts is extremely important for the whole community. 


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



On 11 Mar 2020, at 13:05, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Excited to see this. The sandbox criteria (https://www.cncf.io/sandbox-projects/) (point 3 specifically) states:

3. Projects commissioned or sanctioned by the CNCF, including initial code for CNCF WG collaborations, and “experimental” projects

Following this, I would suggest to the TOC we would proceed with moving this through the SIG process as a Sandbox project. Where I would like to understand is what is the graduation pathway for this - does it graduate to being a CNCF Service? An incubating project like any other? Furthermore, if it's a CNCF service, does it follow different requirements to leave sandbox?

I look forward to getting involved in the development and governance of this project. Thanks Dan, Matt, Cynthia, Sergio, and the Operator Framework / Helm teams for the discussion back at KubeCon!

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:35 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Hello folks, I want to share that the CNCF Hub which was alluded to in the last TOC call is now public. You can find the source at https://github.com/cncf/hub.  From the README:

Hub is a web-based application that enables finding, installing, and publishing packages and configurations for CNCF projects. For example, this could include Helm charts, Falco configurations, and Open Policy Agent (OPA) policies.

Discovering artifacts to use with CNCF projects can be difficult. If every CNCF project that needs to share artifacts creates its own Hub this creates a fair amount of repeat work for each project and a fractured experience for those trying to find the artifacts to consume. The CNCF Hub attempts to solve that by providing a single experience for consumers that any CNCF project can leverage.

The project, accessible at https://hub.cncf.io, is currently in development in a pre-alpha state. Support for Helm charts is in development with plans to support more projects to follow. Pull requests, especially those to support other CNCF projects, are welcome.


I look forward to some healthy discussion over the technical bits along with how to proceed positionally with the project. For example, is this something that should be a sandbox project or a service from the CNCF? Or, something else?

For those interested in some more history and context...

At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon SD, last November, a group of us got together. That include Dan Kohn along with representatives from the Operator Framewok, KUDO, and Helm. Note, both the Operator Framework and KUDO are projects that were and are proposed for the CNCF.

After that meeting I was asked to write an initial specification to kick things off. You can read there here. The specification was started to be turned into reality by Dan through Cynthia and Sergio.

For those who might wonder why this was not more public sooner... the plan was to do so but the virus impact on operations, like the movement of conferences, has impacted the schedule.

I want to thank Dan for bringing people together around this topic and working to make the idea a reality.

I'm happy to try to answer any questions. But, as I have only been involved during parts of this process (and often to a limited extent outside of the spec and initial meeting) I may have to defer to others for answers.

Regards,
Matt Farina





--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

3401 - 3420 of 7724