|
Re: Public comment period for Ambassador
This question is probably six months too late, but didn't CNCF own the Ambasaador trademark (since the project joined Sandbox)?
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 at 18:08, Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote: Personally I disagree that this is akin to asking for a license change.
The name is an intrinsic part of the project. It is the primary key for the community. This feels more like accepting a fork (well, I'm assuming there is no divergence) while the original project stays with the commercial entity. Personally, I'm interested to see how much of a community is left after the name change and how much of that community is attached to the commercial entity named "Ambassador".
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:04 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: I don't think we have to fully pause everything but it's up to the TOC here, if the TOC is saying "choose another name than IC4EP or something else that wouldn't confuse end users" before we accept the project fully then the project can do that in parallel as we onboard it as part of staff duties. We can work with the project to pick up a name and run it by the TOC again.
IMHO I view this a bit similar to a project coming in that may have to change a license to Apache-2 etc (like grpc did as an example), just part of the onboarding process.
OK then IMO we have to pause this for a bit. Can we finalize the name, get it fully done, and then re-submit the DD with the new name, website, etc. clearly in place?
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:55 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: The problem is the company rebranded to Ambassador also here: https://www.getambassador.io, so the project needs to be renamed to deal with the obvious trademark conflict here. The CNCF is open to whatever the project decides and that clears a trademark search.
Also, to be clear, I think Ambassador is a big part of the OSS brand and I had erroneously thought that we were sticking with that name. If we are going to change the name to something entirely new it might be good to do that and then circle back in a few months to see how it's going.
I'm sorry for not tracking this more closely, but I agree with Joe on this. I'm not OK with an acronym for something that IMO is too generic. I think you either have to stick with Ambassador or choose an entirely new name.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:37 AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote: IC4E only begs the question about what it stands for. It also doesn't set the project up, IMO, for success as the more memorable name will be with the commercial entity and it could stunt the development of the open source project outside of the commercial attachments. If this were at the Sandbox level I probably wouldn't be bringing this up, but the name change along with introduction into Incubation is something new that the CNCF hasn't seen before. I worry people will still colloquially refer to the OSS project as "Ambassador" (and documentation and install scripts still use the name).
Hi Joe, Matt, many thanks for your comments.
@Matt, I remember you raising this in the DD document comments,
and @Chris Aniszczyk suggested this would be acceptable under the
trademark policy (e.g. "X for Envoy"). He suggested that we use a
short name like "IC4E" in the docs and new website that would be
created for the project.
We originally looked to ingress-nginx as inspiration, since the
community seems to have accepted this as a name even though it’s
well-understood it’s not “official”. We also wanted to with a
descriptive name instead of an abstract name, because we thought
it would be easier for people to understand.
Best wishes,
Daniel
On 06/01/2021 19:54, Matt Klein wrote:
> I object to the name "Ingress Controller for
Envoy Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress Controller
for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no kingmakers" value of
the TOC.
I agree and I raised a similar concern at some point but I
don't remember the outcome here. @Daniel Bryant?
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:48
AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote:
What is the new name? The name "ambassador" is
all over the docs and I'd expect to see this reframed around
the new name.
I object to the name "Ingress Controller for Envoy
Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress
Controller for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no
kingmakers" value of the TOC.
Joe
All,
Ambassador is applying for incubation status:
DD has been reviewed by myself and SIG Network
and we are supportive. We are now calling for the 2
week public comment period prior to the vote.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Daniel Bryant | @danielbryantuk
--
I like to work flexible hours (and across time zones), but please don't feel obligated to reply to this message outside of your own working hours.
--
--
|
|
|
Re: Public comment period for Ambassador
Personally I disagree that this is akin to asking for a license change.
The name is an intrinsic part of the project. It is the primary key for the community. This feels more like accepting a fork (well, I'm assuming there is no divergence) while the original project stays with the commercial entity. Personally, I'm interested to see how much of a community is left after the name change and how much of that community is attached to the commercial entity named "Ambassador".
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:04 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: I don't think we have to fully pause everything but it's up to the TOC here, if the TOC is saying "choose another name than IC4EP or something else that wouldn't confuse end users" before we accept the project fully then the project can do that in parallel as we onboard it as part of staff duties. We can work with the project to pick up a name and run it by the TOC again.
IMHO I view this a bit similar to a project coming in that may have to change a license to Apache-2 etc (like grpc did as an example), just part of the onboarding process.
OK then IMO we have to pause this for a bit. Can we finalize the name, get it fully done, and then re-submit the DD with the new name, website, etc. clearly in place?
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:55 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: The problem is the company rebranded to Ambassador also here: https://www.getambassador.io, so the project needs to be renamed to deal with the obvious trademark conflict here. The CNCF is open to whatever the project decides and that clears a trademark search.
Also, to be clear, I think Ambassador is a big part of the OSS brand and I had erroneously thought that we were sticking with that name. If we are going to change the name to something entirely new it might be good to do that and then circle back in a few months to see how it's going.
I'm sorry for not tracking this more closely, but I agree with Joe on this. I'm not OK with an acronym for something that IMO is too generic. I think you either have to stick with Ambassador or choose an entirely new name.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:37 AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote: IC4E only begs the question about what it stands for. It also doesn't set the project up, IMO, for success as the more memorable name will be with the commercial entity and it could stunt the development of the open source project outside of the commercial attachments. If this were at the Sandbox level I probably wouldn't be bringing this up, but the name change along with introduction into Incubation is something new that the CNCF hasn't seen before. I worry people will still colloquially refer to the OSS project as "Ambassador" (and documentation and install scripts still use the name).
Hi Joe, Matt, many thanks for your comments.
@Matt, I remember you raising this in the DD document comments,
and @Chris Aniszczyk suggested this would be acceptable under the
trademark policy (e.g. "X for Envoy"). He suggested that we use a
short name like "IC4E" in the docs and new website that would be
created for the project.
We originally looked to ingress-nginx as inspiration, since the
community seems to have accepted this as a name even though it’s
well-understood it’s not “official”. We also wanted to with a
descriptive name instead of an abstract name, because we thought
it would be easier for people to understand.
Best wishes,
Daniel
On 06/01/2021 19:54, Matt Klein wrote:
> I object to the name "Ingress Controller for
Envoy Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress Controller
for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no kingmakers" value of
the TOC.
I agree and I raised a similar concern at some point but I
don't remember the outcome here. @Daniel Bryant?
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:48
AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote:
What is the new name? The name "ambassador" is
all over the docs and I'd expect to see this reframed around
the new name.
I object to the name "Ingress Controller for Envoy
Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress
Controller for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no
kingmakers" value of the TOC.
Joe
All,
Ambassador is applying for incubation status:
DD has been reviewed by myself and SIG Network
and we are supportive. We are now calling for the 2
week public comment period prior to the vote.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Daniel Bryant | @danielbryantuk
--
I like to work flexible hours (and across time zones), but please don't feel obligated to reply to this message outside of your own working hours.
--
--
|
|
|
Re: Public comment period for Ambassador
> if the TOC is saying "choose another name than IC4EP or something else that wouldn't confuse end users" before we accept the project fully then the project can do that in parallel as we onboard it as part of staff duties.
This is what I'm saying. I can't speak for the rest of the TOC but I won't be voting +1 until we have a clear plan here that feels right to everyone.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:04 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: I don't think we have to fully pause everything but it's up to the TOC here, if the TOC is saying "choose another name than IC4EP or something else that wouldn't confuse end users" before we accept the project fully then the project can do that in parallel as we onboard it as part of staff duties. We can work with the project to pick up a name and run it by the TOC again.
IMHO I view this a bit similar to a project coming in that may have to change a license to Apache-2 etc (like grpc did as an example), just part of the onboarding process.
OK then IMO we have to pause this for a bit. Can we finalize the name, get it fully done, and then re-submit the DD with the new name, website, etc. clearly in place?
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:55 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: The problem is the company rebranded to Ambassador also here: https://www.getambassador.io, so the project needs to be renamed to deal with the obvious trademark conflict here. The CNCF is open to whatever the project decides and that clears a trademark search.
Also, to be clear, I think Ambassador is a big part of the OSS brand and I had erroneously thought that we were sticking with that name. If we are going to change the name to something entirely new it might be good to do that and then circle back in a few months to see how it's going.
I'm sorry for not tracking this more closely, but I agree with Joe on this. I'm not OK with an acronym for something that IMO is too generic. I think you either have to stick with Ambassador or choose an entirely new name.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:37 AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote: IC4E only begs the question about what it stands for. It also doesn't set the project up, IMO, for success as the more memorable name will be with the commercial entity and it could stunt the development of the open source project outside of the commercial attachments. If this were at the Sandbox level I probably wouldn't be bringing this up, but the name change along with introduction into Incubation is something new that the CNCF hasn't seen before. I worry people will still colloquially refer to the OSS project as "Ambassador" (and documentation and install scripts still use the name).
Hi Joe, Matt, many thanks for your comments.
@Matt, I remember you raising this in the DD document comments,
and @Chris Aniszczyk suggested this would be acceptable under the
trademark policy (e.g. "X for Envoy"). He suggested that we use a
short name like "IC4E" in the docs and new website that would be
created for the project.
We originally looked to ingress-nginx as inspiration, since the
community seems to have accepted this as a name even though it’s
well-understood it’s not “official”. We also wanted to with a
descriptive name instead of an abstract name, because we thought
it would be easier for people to understand.
Best wishes,
Daniel
On 06/01/2021 19:54, Matt Klein wrote:
> I object to the name "Ingress Controller for
Envoy Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress Controller
for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no kingmakers" value of
the TOC.
I agree and I raised a similar concern at some point but I
don't remember the outcome here. @Daniel Bryant?
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:48
AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote:
What is the new name? The name "ambassador" is
all over the docs and I'd expect to see this reframed around
the new name.
I object to the name "Ingress Controller for Envoy
Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress
Controller for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no
kingmakers" value of the TOC.
Joe
All,
Ambassador is applying for incubation status:
DD has been reviewed by myself and SIG Network
and we are supportive. We are now calling for the 2
week public comment period prior to the vote.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Daniel Bryant | @danielbryantuk
--
I like to work flexible hours (and across time zones), but please don't feel obligated to reply to this message outside of your own working hours.
--
--
|
|
|
Re: Public comment period for Ambassador
Chris Aniszczyk
I don't think we have to fully pause everything but it's up to the TOC here, if the TOC is saying "choose another name than IC4EP or something else that wouldn't confuse end users" before we accept the project fully then the project can do that in parallel as we onboard it as part of staff duties. We can work with the project to pick up a name and run it by the TOC again.
IMHO I view this a bit similar to a project coming in that may have to change a license to Apache-2 etc (like grpc did as an example), just part of the onboarding process.
OK then IMO we have to pause this for a bit. Can we finalize the name, get it fully done, and then re-submit the DD with the new name, website, etc. clearly in place?
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:55 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: The problem is the company rebranded to Ambassador also here: https://www.getambassador.io, so the project needs to be renamed to deal with the obvious trademark conflict here. The CNCF is open to whatever the project decides and that clears a trademark search.
Also, to be clear, I think Ambassador is a big part of the OSS brand and I had erroneously thought that we were sticking with that name. If we are going to change the name to something entirely new it might be good to do that and then circle back in a few months to see how it's going.
I'm sorry for not tracking this more closely, but I agree with Joe on this. I'm not OK with an acronym for something that IMO is too generic. I think you either have to stick with Ambassador or choose an entirely new name.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:37 AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote: IC4E only begs the question about what it stands for. It also doesn't set the project up, IMO, for success as the more memorable name will be with the commercial entity and it could stunt the development of the open source project outside of the commercial attachments. If this were at the Sandbox level I probably wouldn't be bringing this up, but the name change along with introduction into Incubation is something new that the CNCF hasn't seen before. I worry people will still colloquially refer to the OSS project as "Ambassador" (and documentation and install scripts still use the name).
Hi Joe, Matt, many thanks for your comments.
@Matt, I remember you raising this in the DD document comments,
and @Chris Aniszczyk suggested this would be acceptable under the
trademark policy (e.g. "X for Envoy"). He suggested that we use a
short name like "IC4E" in the docs and new website that would be
created for the project.
We originally looked to ingress-nginx as inspiration, since the
community seems to have accepted this as a name even though it’s
well-understood it’s not “official”. We also wanted to with a
descriptive name instead of an abstract name, because we thought
it would be easier for people to understand.
Best wishes,
Daniel
On 06/01/2021 19:54, Matt Klein wrote:
> I object to the name "Ingress Controller for
Envoy Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress Controller
for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no kingmakers" value of
the TOC.
I agree and I raised a similar concern at some point but I
don't remember the outcome here. @Daniel Bryant?
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:48
AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote:
What is the new name? The name "ambassador" is
all over the docs and I'd expect to see this reframed around
the new name.
I object to the name "Ingress Controller for Envoy
Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress
Controller for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no
kingmakers" value of the TOC.
Joe
All,
Ambassador is applying for incubation status:
DD has been reviewed by myself and SIG Network
and we are supportive. We are now calling for the 2
week public comment period prior to the vote.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Daniel Bryant | @danielbryantuk
--
I like to work flexible hours (and across time zones), but please don't feel obligated to reply to this message outside of your own working hours.
--
|
|
|
Re: Public comment period for Ambassador
OK then IMO we have to pause this for a bit. Can we finalize the name, get it fully done, and then re-submit the DD with the new name, website, etc. clearly in place?
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:55 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: The problem is the company rebranded to Ambassador also here: https://www.getambassador.io, so the project needs to be renamed to deal with the obvious trademark conflict here. The CNCF is open to whatever the project decides and that clears a trademark search.
Also, to be clear, I think Ambassador is a big part of the OSS brand and I had erroneously thought that we were sticking with that name. If we are going to change the name to something entirely new it might be good to do that and then circle back in a few months to see how it's going.
I'm sorry for not tracking this more closely, but I agree with Joe on this. I'm not OK with an acronym for something that IMO is too generic. I think you either have to stick with Ambassador or choose an entirely new name.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:37 AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote: IC4E only begs the question about what it stands for. It also doesn't set the project up, IMO, for success as the more memorable name will be with the commercial entity and it could stunt the development of the open source project outside of the commercial attachments. If this were at the Sandbox level I probably wouldn't be bringing this up, but the name change along with introduction into Incubation is something new that the CNCF hasn't seen before. I worry people will still colloquially refer to the OSS project as "Ambassador" (and documentation and install scripts still use the name).
Hi Joe, Matt, many thanks for your comments.
@Matt, I remember you raising this in the DD document comments,
and @Chris Aniszczyk suggested this would be acceptable under the
trademark policy (e.g. "X for Envoy"). He suggested that we use a
short name like "IC4E" in the docs and new website that would be
created for the project.
We originally looked to ingress-nginx as inspiration, since the
community seems to have accepted this as a name even though it’s
well-understood it’s not “official”. We also wanted to with a
descriptive name instead of an abstract name, because we thought
it would be easier for people to understand.
Best wishes,
Daniel
On 06/01/2021 19:54, Matt Klein wrote:
> I object to the name "Ingress Controller for
Envoy Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress Controller
for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no kingmakers" value of
the TOC.
I agree and I raised a similar concern at some point but I
don't remember the outcome here. @Daniel Bryant?
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:48
AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote:
What is the new name? The name "ambassador" is
all over the docs and I'd expect to see this reframed around
the new name.
I object to the name "Ingress Controller for Envoy
Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress
Controller for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no
kingmakers" value of the TOC.
Joe
All,
Ambassador is applying for incubation status:
DD has been reviewed by myself and SIG Network
and we are supportive. We are now calling for the 2
week public comment period prior to the vote.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Daniel Bryant | @danielbryantuk
--
I like to work flexible hours (and across time zones), but please don't feel obligated to reply to this message outside of your own working hours.
--
|
|
|
Re: Public comment period for Ambassador
Chris Aniszczyk
The problem is the company rebranded to Ambassador also here: https://www.getambassador.io, so the project needs to be renamed to deal with the obvious trademark conflict here. The CNCF is open to whatever the project decides and that clears a trademark search.
Also, to be clear, I think Ambassador is a big part of the OSS brand and I had erroneously thought that we were sticking with that name. If we are going to change the name to something entirely new it might be good to do that and then circle back in a few months to see how it's going.
I'm sorry for not tracking this more closely, but I agree with Joe on this. I'm not OK with an acronym for something that IMO is too generic. I think you either have to stick with Ambassador or choose an entirely new name.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:37 AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote: IC4E only begs the question about what it stands for. It also doesn't set the project up, IMO, for success as the more memorable name will be with the commercial entity and it could stunt the development of the open source project outside of the commercial attachments. If this were at the Sandbox level I probably wouldn't be bringing this up, but the name change along with introduction into Incubation is something new that the CNCF hasn't seen before. I worry people will still colloquially refer to the OSS project as "Ambassador" (and documentation and install scripts still use the name).
Hi Joe, Matt, many thanks for your comments.
@Matt, I remember you raising this in the DD document comments,
and @Chris Aniszczyk suggested this would be acceptable under the
trademark policy (e.g. "X for Envoy"). He suggested that we use a
short name like "IC4E" in the docs and new website that would be
created for the project.
We originally looked to ingress-nginx as inspiration, since the
community seems to have accepted this as a name even though it’s
well-understood it’s not “official”. We also wanted to with a
descriptive name instead of an abstract name, because we thought
it would be easier for people to understand.
Best wishes,
Daniel
On 06/01/2021 19:54, Matt Klein wrote:
> I object to the name "Ingress Controller for
Envoy Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress Controller
for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no kingmakers" value of
the TOC.
I agree and I raised a similar concern at some point but I
don't remember the outcome here. @Daniel Bryant?
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:48
AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote:
What is the new name? The name "ambassador" is
all over the docs and I'd expect to see this reframed around
the new name.
I object to the name "Ingress Controller for Envoy
Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress
Controller for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no
kingmakers" value of the TOC.
Joe
All,
Ambassador is applying for incubation status:
DD has been reviewed by myself and SIG Network
and we are supportive. We are now calling for the 2
week public comment period prior to the vote.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Daniel Bryant | @danielbryantuk
--
I like to work flexible hours (and across time zones), but please don't feel obligated to reply to this message outside of your own working hours.
|
|
|
Re: Public comment period for Ambassador
Also, to be clear, I think Ambassador is a big part of the OSS brand and I had erroneously thought that we were sticking with that name. If we are going to change the name to something entirely new it might be good to do that and then circle back in a few months to see how it's going.
I'm sorry for not tracking this more closely, but I agree with Joe on this. I'm not OK with an acronym for something that IMO is too generic. I think you either have to stick with Ambassador or choose an entirely new name.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:37 AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote: IC4E only begs the question about what it stands for. It also doesn't set the project up, IMO, for success as the more memorable name will be with the commercial entity and it could stunt the development of the open source project outside of the commercial attachments. If this were at the Sandbox level I probably wouldn't be bringing this up, but the name change along with introduction into Incubation is something new that the CNCF hasn't seen before. I worry people will still colloquially refer to the OSS project as "Ambassador" (and documentation and install scripts still use the name).
Hi Joe, Matt, many thanks for your comments.
@Matt, I remember you raising this in the DD document comments,
and @Chris Aniszczyk suggested this would be acceptable under the
trademark policy (e.g. "X for Envoy"). He suggested that we use a
short name like "IC4E" in the docs and new website that would be
created for the project.
We originally looked to ingress-nginx as inspiration, since the
community seems to have accepted this as a name even though it’s
well-understood it’s not “official”. We also wanted to with a
descriptive name instead of an abstract name, because we thought
it would be easier for people to understand.
Best wishes,
Daniel
On 06/01/2021 19:54, Matt Klein wrote:
> I object to the name "Ingress Controller for
Envoy Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress Controller
for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no kingmakers" value of
the TOC.
I agree and I raised a similar concern at some point but I
don't remember the outcome here. @Daniel Bryant?
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:48
AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote:
What is the new name? The name "ambassador" is
all over the docs and I'd expect to see this reframed around
the new name.
I object to the name "Ingress Controller for Envoy
Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress
Controller for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no
kingmakers" value of the TOC.
Joe
All,
Ambassador is applying for incubation status:
DD has been reviewed by myself and SIG Network
and we are supportive. We are now calling for the 2
week public comment period prior to the vote.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Daniel Bryant | @danielbryantuk
--
I like to work flexible hours (and across time zones), but please don't feel obligated to reply to this message outside of your own working hours.
|
|
|
Re: Public comment period for Ambassador
I'm sorry for not tracking this more closely, but I agree with Joe on this. I'm not OK with an acronym for something that IMO is too generic. I think you either have to stick with Ambassador or choose an entirely new name.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:37 AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote: IC4E only begs the question about what it stands for. It also doesn't set the project up, IMO, for success as the more memorable name will be with the commercial entity and it could stunt the development of the open source project outside of the commercial attachments. If this were at the Sandbox level I probably wouldn't be bringing this up, but the name change along with introduction into Incubation is something new that the CNCF hasn't seen before. I worry people will still colloquially refer to the OSS project as "Ambassador" (and documentation and install scripts still use the name).
Hi Joe, Matt, many thanks for your comments.
@Matt, I remember you raising this in the DD document comments,
and @Chris Aniszczyk suggested this would be acceptable under the
trademark policy (e.g. "X for Envoy"). He suggested that we use a
short name like "IC4E" in the docs and new website that would be
created for the project.
We originally looked to ingress-nginx as inspiration, since the
community seems to have accepted this as a name even though it’s
well-understood it’s not “official”. We also wanted to with a
descriptive name instead of an abstract name, because we thought
it would be easier for people to understand.
Best wishes,
Daniel
On 06/01/2021 19:54, Matt Klein wrote:
> I object to the name "Ingress Controller for
Envoy Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress Controller
for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no kingmakers" value of
the TOC.
I agree and I raised a similar concern at some point but I
don't remember the outcome here. @Daniel Bryant?
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:48
AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote:
What is the new name? The name "ambassador" is
all over the docs and I'd expect to see this reframed around
the new name.
I object to the name "Ingress Controller for Envoy
Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress
Controller for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no
kingmakers" value of the TOC.
Joe
All,
Ambassador is applying for incubation status:
DD has been reviewed by myself and SIG Network
and we are supportive. We are now calling for the 2
week public comment period prior to the vote.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Daniel Bryant | @danielbryantuk
--
I like to work flexible hours (and across time zones), but please don't feel obligated to reply to this message outside of your own working hours.
|
|
|
Re: Public comment period for Ambassador
IC4E only begs the question about what it stands for. It also doesn't set the project up, IMO, for success as the more memorable name will be with the commercial entity and it could stunt the development of the open source project outside of the commercial attachments. If this were at the Sandbox level I probably wouldn't be bringing this up, but the name change along with introduction into Incubation is something new that the CNCF hasn't seen before. I worry people will still colloquially refer to the OSS project as "Ambassador" (and documentation and install scripts still use the name).
Hi Joe, Matt, many thanks for your comments.
@Matt, I remember you raising this in the DD document comments,
and @Chris Aniszczyk suggested this would be acceptable under the
trademark policy (e.g. "X for Envoy"). He suggested that we use a
short name like "IC4E" in the docs and new website that would be
created for the project.
We originally looked to ingress-nginx as inspiration, since the
community seems to have accepted this as a name even though it’s
well-understood it’s not “official”. We also wanted to with a
descriptive name instead of an abstract name, because we thought
it would be easier for people to understand.
Best wishes,
Daniel
On 06/01/2021 19:54, Matt Klein wrote:
> I object to the name "Ingress Controller for
Envoy Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress Controller
for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no kingmakers" value of
the TOC.
I agree and I raised a similar concern at some point but I
don't remember the outcome here. @Daniel Bryant?
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:48
AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote:
What is the new name? The name "ambassador" is
all over the docs and I'd expect to see this reframed around
the new name.
I object to the name "Ingress Controller for Envoy
Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress
Controller for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no
kingmakers" value of the TOC.
Joe
All,
Ambassador is applying for incubation status:
DD has been reviewed by myself and SIG Network
and we are supportive. We are now calling for the 2
week public comment period prior to the vote.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Daniel Bryant | @danielbryantuk
--
I like to work flexible hours (and across time zones), but please don't feel obligated to reply to this message outside of your own working hours.
|
|
|
Re: Public comment period for Ambassador
Daniel Bryant <daniel.bryant@...>
Hi Joe, Matt, many thanks for your comments.
@Matt, I remember you raising this in the DD document comments,
and @Chris Aniszczyk suggested this would be acceptable under the
trademark policy (e.g. "X for Envoy"). He suggested that we use a
short name like "IC4E" in the docs and new website that would be
created for the project.
We originally looked to ingress-nginx as inspiration, since the
community seems to have accepted this as a name even though it’s
well-understood it’s not “official”. We also wanted to with a
descriptive name instead of an abstract name, because we thought
it would be easier for people to understand.
Best wishes,
Daniel
On 06/01/2021 19:54, Matt Klein wrote:
> I object to the name "Ingress Controller for
Envoy Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress Controller
for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no kingmakers" value of
the TOC.
I agree and I raised a similar concern at some point but I
don't remember the outcome here. @Daniel Bryant?
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:48
AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote:
What is the new name? The name "ambassador" is
all over the docs and I'd expect to see this reframed around
the new name.
I object to the name "Ingress Controller for Envoy
Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create
confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress
Controller for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no
kingmakers" value of the TOC.
Joe
All,
Ambassador is applying for incubation status:
DD has been reviewed by myself and SIG Network
and we are supportive. We are now calling for the 2
week public comment period prior to the vote.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Daniel Bryant | @danielbryantuk
--
I like to work flexible hours (and across time zones), but please don't feel obligated to reply to this message outside of your own working hours.
|
|
|
Re: FYI: Fuzzing for CNCF Projects
That's a very insightful report! Would be great to see more CNCF projects using fuzzing integration to simplify vulnerability scanning and bug fixing.
Thanks for sharing, this is a very useful initiative Chris.
I’ve been thinking about doing a proposal for the Falco project to adopt syzcaller[0] to perform continuous fuzzing of the inputs/language parser.
I’ll bring up this topic at the next Falco community call to see what other maintainers think.
Thanks again for sharing!
Lore
[0]: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/Hey TOC and the wider community, some of our projects have taken advantage of fuzzing (through oss-fuzz and other tools), also we recently funded some fuzzing/audit work for fluentbit to see the impact and usefulness: https://github.com/fluent/fluent-bit/pull/2853
I've attached a report as an output which contains all the issues found/resolved. If your project is interested in this type of work, let us know via a servicedesk request ( https://github.com/cncf/servicedesk), we found it fairly useful on top of normal security audits.
|
|
|
Re: SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations
Dan Shaw
+1 NB
Thank you Ashutosh Narkar, Aradhana Chetal and Andres Vega for all the hard work advancing SIG-Security.
Dan ShawCor.dev - Solving Solved Problems 💗
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 5:43 PM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...> wrote: Dear Technical Oversight Committee, On December 16th 2020, the SIG-Security co-chairs along with then TOC liason’s Liz Rice and Justin Cormack, agreed to nominate three Tech Leads for SIG-Security: Ashutosh Narkar, Aradhana Chetal and Andres Vega. “Tech leads are assigned following a 2/3 majority vote of the TOC and a 2/3 majority vote of SIG Chairs” — cncf-sig elections Thank you!
Jeyappragash.J.J (On behalf of SIG-Security Chairs)
TL Candidates - Dec 2020
Ashutosh Narkar
Aradhana Chetal
Andres Vega
|
|
|
Re: SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
+1 binding
-alena. On Jan 6, 2021, at 1:34 AM, Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote:
Bumping this vote, as it would be great to get the new SIG Security leads in place if others on the TOC are comfortable with these nominees ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Justin Cormack via lists.cncf.io <justin.cormack=docker.com@...>Date: Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations To: Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...> Cc: CNCF TOC < cncf-toc@...> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 1:43 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...> wrote: Dear Technical Oversight Committee, On December 16th 2020, the SIG-Security co-chairs along with then TOC liason’s Liz Rice and Justin Cormack, agreed to nominate three Tech Leads for SIG-Security: Ashutosh Narkar, Aradhana Chetal and Andres Vega. “Tech leads are assigned following a 2/3 majority vote of the TOC and a 2/3 majority vote of SIG Chairs” — cncf-sig elections Thank you!
Jeyappragash.J.J (On behalf of SIG-Security Chairs)
TL Candidates - Dec 2020
Ashutosh Narkar
Aradhana Chetal
Andres Vega
|
|
|
Re: Public comment period for Ambassador
> I object to the name "Ingress Controller for Envoy Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress Controller for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no kingmakers" value of the TOC.
I agree and I raised a similar concern at some point but I don't remember the outcome here. @Daniel Bryant?
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:48 AM Joe Beda < joe@...> wrote: What is the new name? The name "ambassador" is all over the docs and I'd expect to see this reframed around the new name.
I object to the name "Ingress Controller for Envoy Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress Controller for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no kingmakers" value of the TOC.
Joe
All,
Ambassador is applying for incubation status: DD has been reviewed by myself and SIG Network and we are supportive. We are now calling for the 2 week public comment period prior to the vote.
Thanks, Matt
|
|
|
Re: Public comment period for Ambassador
What is the new name? The name "ambassador" is all over the docs and I'd expect to see this reframed around the new name.
I object to the name "Ingress Controller for Envoy Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress Controller for Envoy Proxy" and will violate the "no kingmakers" value of the TOC.
Joe
All,
Ambassador is applying for incubation status: DD has been reviewed by myself and SIG Network and we are supportive. We are now calling for the 2 week public comment period prior to the vote.
Thanks, Matt
|
|
|
Public comment period for Ambassador
All,
Ambassador is applying for incubation status: DD has been reviewed by myself and SIG Network and we are supportive. We are now calling for the 2 week public comment period prior to the vote.
Thanks, Matt
|
|
|
Re: SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jan 6, 2021, at 1:34 AM, Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote:
Bumping this vote, as it would be great to get the new SIG Security leads in place if others on the TOC are comfortable with these nominees ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Justin Cormack via lists.cncf.io <justin.cormack=docker.com@...>Date: Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations To: Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...> Cc: CNCF TOC < cncf-toc@...> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 1:43 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...> wrote: Dear Technical Oversight Committee, On December 16th 2020, the SIG-Security co-chairs along with then TOC liason’s Liz Rice and Justin Cormack, agreed to nominate three Tech Leads for SIG-Security: Ashutosh Narkar, Aradhana Chetal and Andres Vega. “Tech leads are assigned following a 2/3 majority vote of the TOC and a 2/3 majority vote of SIG Chairs” — cncf-sig elections Thank you!
Jeyappragash.J.J (On behalf of SIG-Security Chairs)
TL Candidates - Dec 2020
Ashutosh Narkar
Aradhana Chetal
Andres Vega
|
|
|
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Dave Zolotusky via lists.cncf.io <dzolo=spotify.com@...>
Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 6:55:44 AM
To: John Hillegass <hillegassdev@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>; Liz Rice <liz@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations
+1 binding
On Jan 6, 2021, 4:35 AM -0500, Liz Rice < liz@...>, wrote:
Bumping this vote, as it would be great to get the new SIG Security leads in place if others on the TOC are comfortable with these nominees
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Justin Cormack via
lists.cncf.io <justin.cormack=docker.com@...>
Date: Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations
To: Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC < cncf-toc@...>
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 1:43 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...> wrote:
Dear
Technical Oversight Committee,
On
December 16th 2020, the SIG-Security co-chairs along with then TOC liason’s Liz Rice and Justin Cormack, agreed to nominate three Tech Leads for SIG-Security: Ashutosh Narkar, Aradhana Chetal and Andres Vega.
“Tech
leads are assigned following a 2/3 majority vote of the TOC and a 2/3 majority vote of SIG Chairs” —
cncf-sig elections
Thank you!
Jeyappragash.J.J
(On
behalf of SIG-Security Chairs)
TL Candidates - Dec 2020
Ashutosh
Narkar
Aradhana
Chetal
Andres
Vega
--
|
|
|
Re: SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations
Dave Zolotusky
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jan 6, 2021, 4:35 AM -0500, Liz Rice < liz@...>, wrote:
Bumping this vote, as it would be great to get the new SIG Security leads in place if others on the TOC are comfortable with these nominees
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Justin Cormack via lists.cncf.io <justin.cormack=docker.com@...>
Date: Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations
To: Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC < cncf-toc@...>
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 1:43 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...> wrote:
Dear Technical Oversight Committee,
On December 16th 2020, the SIG-Security co-chairs along with then TOC liason’s Liz Rice and Justin Cormack, agreed to nominate three Tech Leads for SIG-Security: Ashutosh Narkar, Aradhana Chetal and Andres Vega.
“Tech leads are assigned following a 2/3 majority vote of the TOC and a 2/3 majority vote of SIG Chairs” — cncf-sig elections
Thank you!
Jeyappragash.J.J
(On behalf of SIG-Security Chairs)
TL Candidates - Dec 2020
Ashutosh Narkar
Aradhana Chetal
Andres Vega
|
|
|
Re: SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations
On Jan 6, 2021, 4:35 AM -0500, Liz Rice <liz@...>, wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Bumping this vote, as it would be great to get the new SIG Security leads in place if others on the TOC are comfortable with these nominees
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Justin Cormack via lists.cncf.io <justin.cormack=docker.com@...>
Date: Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations
To: Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC < cncf-toc@...>
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 1:43 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...> wrote:
Dear Technical Oversight Committee,
On December 16th 2020, the SIG-Security co-chairs along with then TOC liason’s Liz Rice and Justin Cormack, agreed to nominate three Tech Leads for SIG-Security: Ashutosh Narkar, Aradhana Chetal and Andres Vega.
“Tech leads are assigned following a 2/3 majority vote of the TOC and a 2/3 majority vote of SIG Chairs” — cncf-sig elections
Thank you!
Jeyappragash.J.J
(On behalf of SIG-Security Chairs)
TL Candidates - Dec 2020
Ashutosh Narkar
Aradhana Chetal
Andres Vega
|
|
|
