Date   

Re: Helm Hub Migrates To Artifact Hub

alexis richardson
 

Congrats Helm team! 


On Wed, 7 Oct 2020, 16:07 Matt Farina, <matt@...> wrote:
I thought this would be news worth sharing here. The Helm project has had the Helm Hub to help people discover charts. This year the Artifact Hub has come into existence and become a CNCF Sandbox project. The Helm Hub now redirects to the Artifact Hub. Details are available in the announcement at https://helm.sh/blog/helm-hub-moving-to-artifact-hub/

The Artifact Hub is more feature rich and capable than the Helm Hub was. Instead of overhauling the Helm Hub we decided to point people to the Artifact Hub.

- Matt Farina


Helm Hub Migrates To Artifact Hub

Matt Farina
 

I thought this would be news worth sharing here. The Helm project has had the Helm Hub to help people discover charts. This year the Artifact Hub has come into existence and become a CNCF Sandbox project. The Helm Hub now redirects to the Artifact Hub. Details are available in the announcement at https://helm.sh/blog/helm-hub-moving-to-artifact-hub/

The Artifact Hub is more feature rich and capable than the Helm Hub was. Instead of overhauling the Helm Hub we decided to point people to the Artifact Hub.

- Matt Farina


Subsite for project leader resources

Josh Berkus
 

TOC:

We did't have quorum in today's meeting, so I opened our request as an
issue, here:

https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/547

feel free to bikeshed on names, but please approve the existence of a
subsite first, thanks!

--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO


Re: [cncf-enduser] [RESULT] Welcome new TOC member: Dave Zolotusky

Jim Haughwout <jhaughwout@...>
 

Thank you for sharing this great news. Congrats to Dave!


On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:33 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
The End User community has chosen Dave Zolotusky to be seated on the
Technical Oversight Committee, welcome to Dave!

Thanks to all who participated in this special election.

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






Re: Agenda for 10/6's TOC meeting

Liz Rice
 

Sorry folks, I am not feeling super (nothing sinister, don’t worry!) so I am not going to make it to the meeting today


On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:



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


Re: [cncf-enduser] [RESULT] Welcome new TOC member: Dave Zolotusky

Dave Zolotusky
 

Thanks, everyone.

I'm really looking forward to working with the TOC and spending time with other end users in this new role. Feel free to reach out to me over email or in the CNCF slack, where I'm @dzolo.

~Dave

On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:53 AM Jim Haughwout <jhaughwout@...> wrote:
Thank you for sharing this great news. Congrats to Dave!


On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:33 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
The End User community has chosen Dave Zolotusky to be seated on the
Technical Oversight Committee, welcome to Dave!

Thanks to all who participated in this special election.

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







--
~Dave


Re: [cncf-enduser] [RESULT] Welcome new TOC member: Dave Zolotusky

Katie Gamanji
 

Welcome Dave! Looking forward to collaborate with you :)


On Tue, 6 Oct 2020, 00:11 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
Welcome Dave, great to have you with us! 

Liz 

On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 21:23, Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...> wrote:
Congratulations, Dave! Looking forward to working together!

-alena.

> On Oct 5, 2020, at 12:30 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
>
> The End User community has chosen Dave Zolotusky to be seated on the
> Technical Oversight Committee, welcome to Dave!
>
> Thanks to all who participated in this special election.
>
> --
> Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...
>
>
>
>
>







Re: [cncf-enduser] [RESULT] Welcome new TOC member: Dave Zolotusky

Liz Rice
 

Welcome Dave, great to have you with us! 

Liz 

On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 21:23, Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...> wrote:
Congratulations, Dave! Looking forward to working together!

-alena.

> On Oct 5, 2020, at 12:30 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
>
> The End User community has chosen Dave Zolotusky to be seated on the
> Technical Oversight Committee, welcome to Dave!
>
> Thanks to all who participated in this special election.
>
> --
> Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...
>
>
>
>
>







Re: [cncf-enduser] [RESULT] Welcome new TOC member: Dave Zolotusky

Alena Prokharchyk
 

Congratulations, Dave! Looking forward to working together!

-alena.

On Oct 5, 2020, at 12:30 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:

The End User community has chosen Dave Zolotusky to be seated on the
Technical Oversight Committee, welcome to Dave!

Thanks to all who participated in this special election.

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





Re: [RESULT] Welcome new TOC member: Dave Zolotusky

Justin Cormack
 

Looking forward to working with you! 

Justin


On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 20:40, Cheryl Hung <chung@...> wrote:
Congratulations Dave! Very excited to see you join the TOC and to represent the End User Community.



On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 7:30 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin ascavarda@... wrote:

The End User community has chosen Dave Zolotusky to be seated on the

Technical Oversight Committee, welcome to Dave!


Thanks to all who participated in this special election.


--

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








VP of Ecosystem, Cloud Native Computing Foundation


Re: [RESULT] Welcome new TOC member: Dave Zolotusky

Cheryl Hung <chung@...>
 

Congratulations Dave! Very excited to see you join the TOC and to represent the End User Community.



On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 7:30 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin ascavarda@... wrote:

The End User community has chosen Dave Zolotusky to be seated on the

Technical Oversight Committee, welcome to Dave!


Thanks to all who participated in this special election.


--

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








VP of Ecosystem, Cloud Native Computing Foundation


Agenda for 10/6's TOC meeting

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 


[RESULT] Welcome new TOC member: Dave Zolotusky

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

The End User community has chosen Dave Zolotusky to be seated on the
Technical Oversight Committee, welcome to Dave!

Thanks to all who participated in this special election.

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


FYI: CNCF code search via SourceGraph

Chris Aniszczyk
 

In case you want to search across all the CNCF projects code base:

We'd like to thank our friends at SourceGraph for spinning this up, you can comment on this feature here: https://github.com/cncf/foundation/issues/113#issuecomment-703710232

Thanks!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra)


Re: "Steering committee" discussion

Reitbauer, Alois
 

I was listening in to this for a while and wanted to share my observations:

 

  • I think the general assumption should be that people working on projects have good intentions and should be supported. Some comments feel like protecting against people trying to trick the system. Sure they exist and this needs to be addressed but an open, inclusive mind set should be first.
  • It seems to me that project goals get mixed up with metrics or concrete measures to achieve them. Long term sustainability can mean contributors from many organisations and this makes sense. However, if a project is widely used and companies also buy commercial (SaaS) offerings of the solutions there will be somebody maintaining the project. There have been cases in the past – non CNCF – where companies stopped doing open source releases. This is rare and can still be addressed.
  • Naming the project stages still seems to be an issues. The CNCF also has another naming scheme from the technology radar. If the intention is to show maturity and recommendations to the community the assess, trial and adopt nomenclature might be helpful.

 

 

// Alois

 

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "alexis richardson via lists.cncf.io" <alexis=weave.works@...>
Reply to: "alexis@..." <alexis@...>
Date: Thursday, 1. October 2020 at 21:05
To: Stefano Maffulli <stefano.maffulli@...>
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] "Steering committee" discussion

 

I think it's important to listen to people who actually produce the software here. It is really really hard to sustain quality. Adding demands just hurts, doesn't help. That's why we are looking at broader options.

 

 

On Thu, 1 Oct 2020, 19:56 Stefano Maffulli, <stefano.maffulli@...> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 11:17 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Graduation is not meant to be some kind of super impossible bar.

 

My argument is that it shouldn't be intended as a final destination.

 

Let's not assume that all "collaboration" must be between multiple sellers of the same software.

 

How can you not? The power balance is shifted towards those who produce the software. The ones who make the software are natural monopolists, and generally they operate in winner-take-all markets. It's one of the fundamentals of open source to rebalance that power between those who produce and those who consume, by enabling the consumer to be a producer, breaking that barrier.

 

I know that for some software the collaboration aspect is less important though (the monopolistic threat is non-existent or has limited impact). That's why I'm suggesting to explore the software maturity model rather than a simple step like it is now with "graduation".

 

 

--

Stefano Maffulli

Sr. Dir. Digital and Community Marketing | stefano.maffulli@...

The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Dynatrace Austria GmbH (registration number FN 91482h) is a company registered in Linz whose registered office is at 4020 Linz, Austria, Am Fünfundzwanziger Turm 20


Re: "Steering committee" discussion

alexis richardson
 

I think it's important to listen to people who actually produce the software here. It is really really hard to sustain quality. Adding demands just hurts, doesn't help. That's why we are looking at broader options.


On Thu, 1 Oct 2020, 19:56 Stefano Maffulli, <stefano.maffulli@...> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 11:17 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Graduation is not meant to be some kind of super impossible bar.

My argument is that it shouldn't be intended as a final destination.

Let's not assume that all "collaboration" must be between multiple sellers of the same software.

How can you not? The power balance is shifted towards those who produce the software. The ones who make the software are natural monopolists, and generally they operate in winner-take-all markets. It's one of the fundamentals of open source to rebalance that power between those who produce and those who consume, by enabling the consumer to be a producer, breaking that barrier.

I know that for some software the collaboration aspect is less important though (the monopolistic threat is non-existent or has limited impact). That's why I'm suggesting to explore the software maturity model rather than a simple step like it is now with "graduation".


--
Stefano Maffulli
Sr. Dir. Digital and Community Marketing | stefano.maffulli@...


Re: "Steering committee" discussion

Stefano Maffulli <stefano.maffulli@...>
 

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 11:17 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Graduation is not meant to be some kind of super impossible bar.

My argument is that it shouldn't be intended as a final destination.

Let's not assume that all "collaboration" must be between multiple sellers of the same software.

How can you not? The power balance is shifted towards those who produce the software. The ones who make the software are natural monopolists, and generally they operate in winner-take-all markets. It's one of the fundamentals of open source to rebalance that power between those who produce and those who consume, by enabling the consumer to be a producer, breaking that barrier.

I know that for some software the collaboration aspect is less important though (the monopolistic threat is non-existent or has limited impact). That's why I'm suggesting to explore the software maturity model rather than a simple step like it is now with "graduation".


--
Stefano Maffulli
Sr. Dir. Digital and Community Marketing | stefano.maffulli@...


Re: "Steering committee" discussion

alexis richardson
 

Graduation is not meant to be some kind of super impossible bar. It
should be pretty easy to go from successful Incubation to Graduation,
provided social conditions are met. Let's not assume that all
"collaboration" must be between multiple sellers of the same software.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 6:54 PM Stefano Maffulli via lists.cncf.io
<stefano.maffulli=scality.com@...> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:43 AM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Problem statement summary: projects that are controlled by a single vendor struggle to meet the current graduation requirement to have maintainers from multiple organizations (for valid reasons such as, they tend to hire the folks who are expert in that project). This multi-organization requirement is intended to address two concerns:
1. longevity of the project (in the event that a vendor is acquired or goes out of business)
2. ensuring that the project roadmap is community controlled, and not only run in the commercial interest of the vendor (we want to avoid feature hold-back)
We recognize that the current multi-org requirement may not be the only (or even necessarily the best) way to address those concerns

I think it's a serious mistake to de-emphasize diversity of employment among project maintainers in a consortium that is all about collaboration. I'd love to explore other venues before throwing the towel.

Maybe the problem is with the word "graduation" and the way it's portrayed as a destination, rather than one of the criteria to assess longevity and community control of the roadmap.

Pieces of the conversation from Matt and Alexis hint at a source of misinterpretation of what "graduation" means. The fact that CNCF is showing a linear progress from incubation to graduation maybe is contributing to the confusion.

Alexis says:

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 4:27 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

CNCF Incubation tests for production use and technical DD. It has a
high bar. Graduation is oriented towards sustainability including
some of the matters you touch on below. Graduation is more about
sustainability and governance, than about production use. Those are
all related in the end of course.

Sustainability, governance and production use are correlated but quite independent variables. IIRC the Eclipse and Apache Foundation played have experience exposing a series of indicators in a maturity model. Some adopters of software may have more tolerance than others for things like "employment diversity of maintainers".

How about rethinking the flow from incubation to graduation not as a ladder but rather as criteria for a decision-support matrix?

/stef


Re: [VOTE] Rook Graduation

Ken Owens
 

+1 NB

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 12:43 PM Sheng Liang via lists.cncf.io <sheng=rancher.com@...> wrote:

+1 binding

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Katie Gamanji via lists.cncf.io" <gamanjie=gmail.com@...>
Reply-To: "gamanjie@..." <gamanjie@...>
Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 2:30 AM
To: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>
Cc: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Rook Graduation

 

+1 binding

  Great addition to the graduated suite of CNCF projects!

 

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 7:35 PM Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...> wrote:

+1 binding

 

-alena.



On Jul 6, 2020, at 3:03 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:

 

Rook has applied for graduation (see https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/366).

Saad Ali is the TOC sponsor for Rook, has completed DD and has called for a vote.  (https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4846)

Due diligence doc can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1acp9gJ1D_qflHKJBg4gB-nZwZQs87_Dh9uiH4pITc_U/edit?usp=sharing

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: "Steering committee" discussion

Stefano Maffulli <stefano.maffulli@...>
 

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:43 AM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Problem statement summary: projects that are controlled by a single vendor struggle to meet the current graduation requirement to have maintainers from multiple organizations (for valid reasons such as, they tend to hire the folks who are expert in that project). This multi-organization requirement is intended to address two concerns: 
1. longevity of the project (in the event that a vendor is acquired or goes out of business)
2. ensuring that the project roadmap is community controlled, and not only run in the commercial interest of the vendor (we want to avoid feature hold-back)
We recognize that the current multi-org requirement may not be the only (or even necessarily the best) way to address those concerns

I think it's a serious mistake to de-emphasize diversity of employment among project maintainers in a consortium that is all about collaboration. I'd love to explore other venues before throwing the towel.

Maybe the problem is with the word "graduation" and the way it's portrayed as a destination, rather than one of the criteria to assess longevity and community control of the roadmap.

Pieces of the conversation from Matt and Alexis hint at a source of misinterpretation of what "graduation" means. The fact that CNCF is showing a linear progress from incubation to graduation maybe is contributing to the confusion.

Alexis says:

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 4:27 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
CNCF Incubation tests for production use and technical DD.  It has a
high bar.  Graduation is oriented towards sustainability including
some of the matters you touch on below.  Graduation is more about
sustainability and governance, than about production use.  Those are
all related in the end of course.

Sustainability, governance and production use are correlated but quite independent variables. IIRC the Eclipse and Apache Foundation played have experience exposing a series of indicators in a maturity model. Some adopters of software may have more tolerance than others for things like "employment diversity of maintainers".

How about rethinking the flow from incubation to graduation not as a ladder but rather as criteria for a decision-support matrix?

/stef

1961 - 1980 of 7337