Date   

Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

Matt Farina
 

I expect there are many people in this thread that lack some context. So, I figured I'd try to add some. If someone has more to add or a correction please do so. These are intermixed with some of my personal opinions, of course.

k3s feels very similar to Kind (https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kind) and minikube (https://github.com/kubernetes/minikube) both of which are Kubernetes sub-projects.

There are two things about this that jump out to me.

First, kind, k3s, and minikube are different in ways that are important to those who use them. Those subtle differences matter. This happens with other distros, too.

kind was developed with Kubernetes test infrastructure automation in mind. In fact, the docs say "kind was primarily designed for testing Kubernetes itself, but may be used for local development or CI.". Minikube, which has been around a lot longer, targets Kubernetes application developers. Their docs note, "minikube's primary goals are to be the best tool for local Kubernetes application development and to support all Kubernetes features that fit."

This distinction is important as we see people performing different roles. Tools for those different roles will likely look different in the end.

k3s targets a different group from these other two. Their docs note, "The certified Kubernetes distribution built for IoT & Edge computing". This is a different situation from the other two and I would expect the experiencing of using it to look different.

It may feel the same on the surface but the subtle goals are going to lead it in some different directions. Those are good as one size does not fit all.

Second, while minikube and kind are k8s sub-projects that doesn't mean all distros that fall under the CNCF need to be. kind you would expect to be be part of the kubernetes project because it was developed with testing kubernetes itself in mind. If minikube were started today it may have been something entirely separate from the kubernetes project. Over the years we have had discussions and debates on this theoretical topic.

The idea that all of these things must or should be part of the Kubernetes project doesn't fit with the discussions the k8s community has had over the years. In fact, people come to Kubernetes with ideas for changes and we regularly tell them to do them as part a different project rather than in k8s.

I'm surprised to see a push for distros that are open source to be part of the k8s project if they are to be in the CNCF.

I would like to to see k3s follow the same approach as those projects and apply to become a k8s sub-project first, rather than a standalone CNCF sandbox project.
This would ensure consistency, and give me confidence that Kubernetes experts have reviewed the project. Even if the k8s community ultimately says no, it wouldn't mean automatic no for a stand alone CNCF project, but would provide valuable insight for a CNCF application.

I would prefer to see diversity over consistency. If a distribution is conformant (we have tests for that) there should be room for diversity in the way things are done. Sometimes this will be experiments. Sometimes that will mean one distro is not consistent with another. For example, some distros ship with CRDs pre-installed which means an extended API. Sometimes that will mean someone swapped out a component with another version that uses the same APIs.

The sandbox is a great please to experiment in a cross company way.

The k8s community is amazingly busy. The people are busy. I wouldn't want to put more on their plates but rather take it off. Enabling groups to operate autonomously from each other or in a loosely coupled manner helps with that. Sub-projects of Kubernetes are limited in their ability to do that. A product of Kubernetes trying to efficiently handle the scale of people and decisions.

Being a separate CNCF project enables a loose coupling. It doesn't add work to an overworked k8s community but enables collaboration. This is an often overlooked element.

Open source projects aren't companies that fall along nice divisional lines. They are far more organic while variance in people, process, and ideas flourish. A fertile place for that is important.

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, at 5:06 AM, Saad Ali via lists.cncf.io wrote:
Abstain

Unfortunately I missed the "Joint CNCF TOC/Kubernetes Steering Committee" meeting. But I talked to some folks afterwards to fill me in.

Overall, I'd like to avoid setting precedent that a project unable to generate consensus within the Kubernetes community, can bypass the community by going straight to the CNCF.
While that may not be what happened here, k3s feels very similar to Kind (https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kind) and minikube (https://github.com/kubernetes/minikube) both of which are Kubernetes sub-projects.
I would like to to see k3s follow the same approach as those projects and apply to become a k8s sub-project first, rather than a standalone CNCF sandbox project.
This would ensure consistency, and give me confidence that Kubernetes experts have reviewed the project. Even if the k8s community ultimately says no, it wouldn't mean automatic no for a stand alone CNCF project, but would provide valuable insight for a CNCF application.
While I realize that building technical consensus is hard, especially in a project as large as Kubernetes, I believe doing so is critical for healthy communities.

Why not vote "-1"? The revised CNCF Sandbox project guidelines lower the bar for sandbox, making it a *tool* that can be used by anyone who needs a neutral place to host IP and collaborate on new projects with minimal overhead rather then a stepping stone towards incubation/graduation. This lets the TOC and CNCF SIGs to be more discriminating for incubation/graduation projects (only accept projects at that level that "makes sense in the CNCF ecosystem") while allowing the sandbox to serve as a test bed for innovation.


Re: [VOTE] Thanos for Incubation

Justin Cormack
 

+1 (binding)

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 7:00 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
The Thanos project has applied for incubation: (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/342).

Katie Gamanji is the TOC sponsor for Thanos, and has completed due diligence.

Due diligence doc can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jJk5seSUcgwybT4nVGOzaRGrugc90uL3WCY0fUgQh1M

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.

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

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


Re: [VOTE] Tech Lead nomination for SIG Observability: Bartłomiej Płotka

Quinton Hoole <quinton@...>
 

+100 NB.  Great!

Q

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020, 15:45 Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
Matt Young and Richard Hartman of SIG Observability have nominated Bartłomiej Płotka as Tech Lead.
https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4592

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.

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

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


Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

es Zou
 

I don't think it needs to be accepted as a sandbox project. 
1. What is the purpose of acceptance? 
2. What is the difference between it and k8s? 
Finally, sandbox should not be abused.

-1

정철 <ivy@...> 于2020年8月8日周六 上午10:59写道:


+1 non-binding

Thank you,
Acornsoft,
Alex

2020년 8월 7일 (금) 오후 11:02, Jimmy Song <jimmysong@...>님이 작성:
+1 non-binding

On Aug 7, 2020, at 1:48 PM, daxmc99 <daxmc99@...> wrote:

+1 NB


Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

ivy@...
 


+1 non-binding

Thank you,
Acornsoft,
Alex

2020년 8월 7일 (금) 오후 11:02, Jimmy Song <jimmysong@...>님이 작성:

+1 non-binding

On Aug 7, 2020, at 1:48 PM, daxmc99 <daxmc99@...> wrote:

+1 NB


Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

Tina Tsou
 

Dear all,

 

+1, NB.

 

 

Thank you,

Tina Tsou

Enterprise Architect

Arm

tina.tsou@...

+1 (408)931-3833

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of St Leger, Jim via lists.cncf.io
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 3:59 PM
To: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

 

+1 non-binding.

I've been on a bit of a pseudo-vacation. Not sure votes are all tallied and done (e.g. status of this vote) or still being gathered. My positive sentiment nonetheless.

Best,
Jim

 

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Amye Scavarda Perrin
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 8:05 AM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

 

k3s has applied for inclusion into the sandbox: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/447.

Liz Rice has called for the vote: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/5081

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.

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

 

--

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

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


Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

St Leger, Jim
 

+1 non-binding.

I've been on a bit of a pseudo-vacation. Not sure votes are all tallied and done (e.g. status of this vote) or still being gathered. My positive sentiment nonetheless.

Best,
Jim

 

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Amye Scavarda Perrin
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 8:05 AM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

 

k3s has applied for inclusion into the sandbox: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/447.

Liz Rice has called for the vote: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/5081

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.

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

 

--

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


Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

Jimmy Song <jimmysong@...>
 

+1 non-binding

On Aug 7, 2020, at 1:48 PM, daxmc99 <daxmc99@...> wrote:

+1 NB


Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

Dax McDonald
 

+1 NB


Re: [VOTE] Thanos for Incubation

Li, Xiang
 

+1 binding

------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Kevin Wang via lists.cncf.io <wangzefeng=huawei.com@...>
Sent At:2020 Aug. 6 (Thu.) 02:21
To:cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Subject:Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Thanos for Incubation

+1 nb

Kevin Wang


Re: [VOTE] Thanos for Incubation

Kevin Wang
 

+1 nb

Kevin Wang


Re: [VOTE] KubeEdge for Incubation

zongkeshuaige@...
 

+1 non-binding


Re: [VOTE] KubeEdge for Incubation

stanley@...
 

+1 (non-binding)


Re: [VOTE] KubeEdge for Incubation

zhiyiliu@...
 

+1 non-binding


[VOTE] KubeEdge for Incubation

plutoligs@...
 

+1 (non-binding)


Re: [VOTE] KubeEdge for Incubation

Ryan
 

+1 nb 


Re: [VOTE] KubeEdge for Incubation

shenkh1992@...
 

+1 non-binding


Re: [VOTE] KubeEdge for Incubation

qingchen_job@...
 

+1 nb


Re: [VOTE] KubeEdge for Incubation

18634671213@...
 

+1 nb


Re: [VOTE] Tech Lead nomination for SIG Observability: Bartłomiej Płotka

Rajat Vig
 

+1 NB

--
Rajat


On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 5:35 AM Rob Skillington <rob@...> wrote:
+1 NB

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:15 PM Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...> wrote:
+1 binding.

-alena

On Jul 9, 2020, at 3:45 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:

Matt Young and Richard Hartman of SIG Observability have nominated Bartłomiej Płotka as Tech Lead.
https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4592

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.

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

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

2581 - 2600 of 7724