Hi all I'm in favour of a wg. But it needs to not overreach. An initial focus could be to parse the space (as Yaron and others did) and identify areas where the cncf can help. If we did this i

+1 on a CNCF WG. Will be happy to contribute to it. I see that different people have different perspectives on serverless or FaaS. I think it will he helpful to define the semantics of serverless

Hi all 1) new call time not set yet, still WED 8am PT I have not quite got to the bottom of new call times for the TOC yet, but I am hoping to find a spot on Tuesday. For APRIL we shall stick to

Doug, I agree, e.g. couple of 1st level topics to start with: Define what constitutes the “Event” and “Context” structures in the function call + expected response, so Functions can be made

One day we may be able to leverage common infrastructure, but for now I think a more realistic goal might be to focus on the end-user and see if we can push for an interoperability statement around

“serverless” Perf is a big issue, start-up time is just part of it, most implementation have huge per F call overhead Can see AWS Lambda avg call (after warm-up) is 500ms:

Glad to see lots of agreement on this thread and +1 to the idea of a WG/SIG. One comment though, Ryan said: > I agree with these, but I'd put performance as non-core because there are plenty of

I think this is one of the areas that the open source community could make the most impact in (relative to cloud platform implementations). Event bus and message bus are prevalent in many, many

+1 on a CNCF WG for serverless. Per a side conversation with Alexis this should be discussed at the TOC so it would be nice to have this added as an agenda item for an upcoming meeting. Mark

I agree with many of the points, had a bunch of 1:1 chats @ KubeCon on the need for more colaboration in that space There will be a bunch of implementations by cloud and OpenSource (I presented

I’m not a fan of the term “serverless” as most people tend to think “no servers” as opposed to “fewer” or “not having to deal with” servers. Of course, FaaS doesn’t quite roll off

Yes, I find this story inspiring from Benchling of moving their genome searching to Lambda and both reducing tail latency and dropping costs from thousands of dollars per month to

I agree. As well as fast startup time and zero cost for idle workloads.

Related to this, many FaaS proponents talk about the economics of only paying for use (function calls). But this economic model is not limited to the serverless app frameworks eg as listed below by

I don't find the term "serverless" to be useful. It's too broad, and could encompass purely client-based computations and web hosting as well as FaaS. I see Functions as a Service as an instance of

Two weeks ago, we at Container Solutions, had an internal hackaton around serverless. Tried most of the tools listed by you Ryan. We are going to publish some blog posts about our findings later

Hi, I have been lurking on this list for sometime now. Skippbox which I founded was recently acquired by Bitnami (a recent member of CNCF). At Kubecon thursday I introduced kubeless[1] which

[inlined] <anthony@...> wrote: Agreement on these terms is probably a bit much to expect. For some time I was hoping we'd settle on "Jeff". While I'm not a lawyer, Lambda seems like the

+1

Thanks for kicking this off Ryan. To provide a little more context for the rest of the TOC, I worked on the first ServerlessConf with Peter Sbarski (in CC) and Alexis asked if it would be possible to