|
Re: Incubation discussion
Solomon Hykes
I agree with the rationale and you captured it very accurately, thank you.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote: Today we had some verbal +1s for the following suggestion:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: Incubation discussion
alexis richardson
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:18 Brian Grant, <briangrant@...> wrote:
That would be a bad outcome that should act as an incentive to exit Incubation positively. Factors like this mitigate in favour of keeping things simple. Eg we could set ourselves a goal of getting projects out of Incubation within N months. Also once we have developed our approach in more detail then we could have a slightly different Incubation model. I think this safety valve is most useful while we are all figuring out the approach.
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: prometheus
Solomon Hykes
+1
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Jonathan Boulle via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: prometheus
John Lawler <jlawler@...>
-1
Prometheus is a fine system but it is certainly not the only only one out there. Sysdig, for example, is also open source and covers much of the same ground. My down vote is not about Prometheus or Sysdig or any other project, but rather about the willy
nilly process. I really thing that there should be a lot more discussion on this any any other such proposals.
John
From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Solomon Hykes via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Solomon Hykes <solomon.hykes@...> Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:07 PM To: Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...> Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] prometheus +1
On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Jonathan Boulle via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: prometheus
Brian Grant
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:11 AM, John Lawler via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
If we're going to figure out the proposal process, we need a proposal to start with, IMO. This thread is merely an expression of interest in a proposal. We don't know whether the project is interested. sysdig is great. And complementary to prometheus. Besides, we've previously agreed that we could accept overlapping projects. Maybe this was the reasoning by work groups: to gather a group of people to look for candidate projects within a particular subdomain, with a goal of producing a proposal (or multiple proposals) at the end.
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: prometheus
Chris Wright
* Brian Grant via cncf-toc (cncf-toc@...) wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:11 AM, John Lawler via cncf-toc <yes
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: prometheus
Rob Hirschfeld
RE: process & incubation.
Sorry to come in late.? My experience is that community may consider graduation from incubation as assured.? I agree that it's intended to be a "maybe" but that can be hard to control once the message gets out and expectations are set. On 04/14/2016 09:11 AM, John Lawler via
cncf-toc wrote:
-- Rob ____________________________ Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522 RackN CEO, Founder I am in CENTRAL (-6) time http://robhirschfeld.com twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: prometheus
alexis richardson
Great point - worth pursuing on the Incubation thread.
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:38 Rob Hirschfeld via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: prometheus
Camille Fournier
+1
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Prometheus proposal for CNCF
alexis richardson
All, I am delighted to sponsor the Prometheus project for adoption in CNCF. TOC, Please take a look at the doc, and expect a presentation on Wednesday April 20th 2016. alexis
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
draft slides for TOC meeting tomorrow
alexis richardson
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
FW: [oci-members] Reminder: Submit a talk for ContainerCon/ContainerCon Japan!
Kenneth Owens (kenowens) <kenowens@...>
Team,
I would like to submit a panel proposal to Containercon on What is the CNCF and What we plan to accomplish.
Anyone interested in being on the Panel?
From: Sarah Saul [mailto:ssaul@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 8:53 AM To: oci-members@... Subject: [oci-members] Reminder: Submit a talk for ContainerCon/ContainerCon Japan!
Hello All,
Just a reminder that the CFP for ContainerCon North America will close on April 26.
Get in your talks while there is still time!
ContainerCon Japan is also open for papers as well. Deadline to submit is May 5th.
Submit here:
http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/containercon-japan/program/cfp
Best, Sarah
--
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
CNI discussion - actions
alexis richardson
All, Issues I heard today: 1. would be good to talk about some fundamental assumptions about what we think about standards (which is part of the OCI mandate) - suggest we involve the GB in this. also: there are related topics - service broker, volumes... E.g.: the TOC needs to decide if a project can be "just a spec", or does it need to be "mainly code that just happens to have a spec". 2. invite some CNI stakeholders, not on TOC, to give us the "project point of view" -- eg metaswitch, redhat? 3. perception, brand and timing are issues; would be good to get some more projects on board that aren't 'glue' or 'interface' type things. Summary: So let's separate the discussion: A) type of acceptable work/projects in CNCF vs B) is CNI a good fit. We need to resolve A independently of B, and can get going first on A. But, eg in parallel, I think it would be fair to hear from a CNI lead (or two) who is not on TOC. alexis
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Discuss/Vote: CNCF Working Groups
Here's the proposal PR for WGs in CNCF: The actual simple process: The first proposed WG around the Service Broker is a WIP, waiting for our finalization of the process: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JnjndNwBB9mct91MLofzNrJwew_MJgwPXlULzrKx14Q/edit#heading=h.32tcpqhictr1 Please comment/vote as I'd love to get something moving:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
TOC call: this week & next week
alexis richardson
Hi all, I am going to be on a plane during next week's TOC call. Please could a TOC member volunteer to chair the call next week? Thank-you all for the call yesterday. I wanted to say that I'm really pleased with how we are interacting as a group. Yes, we have already found some things to disagree about! But we are still getting to know each other and figuring out assumptions and expectations. That will take a little time. For me, what is more important is that we seem to have consensus on the priority of establishing a base of *good open source software projects*. Perhaps I am stating the obvious there. Yet we could so easily have picked a different battle to fight first -- something at one remove from focus on the projects. To make sure that CNCF attracts such projects, I'd really like us to focus on the question "How can we help?" Would it be possible to start the ball rolling on this next week? We can return to other topics later, those being: discussion of assumptions around interoperability and 'what can be a project', plus working groups and so on. alexis
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
an interesting read, about "Cloud Native"
alexis richardson
Hi all, Not too long ago Joe Beda wrote an interesting doc about "Cloud Native". I have his permission to share it, and so I am posting a URL below. I bring this to your attention because it may help us think about how to define "cloud native" for prospective projects and end users. Obviously this is Joe's take on things. What do others think? alexis
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: CNI discussion - actions
Stefan Junker <stefan.junker@...>
Hi,
I’m one of the maintainers of CNI. I was on the CNCF call yesterday during which understood only TOC members should state their opinion, so I decided to just listen and write down my thoughts afterwards. Although CNI is a small project it has been around for a while, and since I joined, the goal has transitioned away from the initial statement which was still captured in the README. Shortly after the call I submitted a small but significant change [1] which I hope will clarify the position of the project. We, the maintainers, don’t want to make CNI a blessed standard. Instead, we hold great value in the specification that has already allowed many projects to use the flexible plugin system for developing and interconnecting simple to complex container networking solutions. Our hope is that the CNCF provides a stable, vendor-neutral brand and home to foster these values, so that even more developers feel comfortable to help improve the quality of existing code and upstream their plugin code. Thanks for your attention! I will also be happy to answer any questions that the TOC has about the project. Stefan Junker [1]: https://github.com/appc/cni/pull/186
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
CNI discussion - actions
Doug Davis <dug@...>
re: topic "A" - acceptable CNCF projects All, Issues I heard today: 1. would be good to talk about some fundamental assumptions about what we think about standards (which is part of the OCI mandate) - suggest we involve the GB in this. also: there are related topics - service broker, volumes... E.g.: the TOC needs to decide if a project can be "just a spec", or does it need to be "mainly code that just happens to have a spec". 2. invite some CNI stakeholders, not on TOC, to give us the "project point of view" -- eg metaswitch, redhat? 3. perception, brand and timing are issues; would be good to get some more projects on board that aren't 'glue' or 'interface' type things. Summary: So let's separate the discussion: A) type of acceptable work/projects in CNCF vs B) is CNI a good fit. We need to resolve A independently of B, and can get going first on A. But, eg in parallel, I think it would be fair to hear from a CNI lead (or two) who is not on TOC. alexis _______________________________________________
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: CNI discussion - actions
On top of what Doug said, I'd like to remind the TOC on what's in the charter currently around projects (section 9): https://cncf.io/governance 9. CNCF Projects (a) It is expected that member companies, and open source community members will bring project assets to the TOC for discussion and inclusion into the CNCF. All such contributions should meet a set criteria created by the TOC and ratified by the Governing Board. The goal is to have an increasing bazaar of projects related to and that integrate with projects already accepted into the CNCF. i. Included in CNCF, under a neutral home for collaboration a. All aspects of the project are governed by the CNCF ii. Associated with the CNCF via an API or specification a. Includes components where the CNCF may offer or enable multiple options iii. Used by the CNCF a. A project or component that is completely licensed under an OSI approved open source license and is well managed and used as a component in the CNCF (c) Existing open source projects should continue to run through their existing technical governance structure to maintain cohesion and velocity. Projects approved by the TOC for inclusion in the CNCF will be ‘lightly’ subject to the Technical Oversight
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Doug Davis via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: CNI discussion - actions
alexis richardson
Doug I think the main worry is "ex ante and de jure standards", i.e.: - created ahead of real adoption & maturation of use cases - by a legislature with wide authority I know that Craig liked to say the TOC was like the supreme court (!) for CNCF, but I think we need to be very humble about our reach. I am OK with standards emerging "ex post and de re". After the fact, and as a matter of fact. That doesn't mean we cannot have interop & glue & documents in the CNCF. We just need to figure out how to do that. Carefully. a
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
Think before you print.
Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---04/20/2016 12:03:18 PM---All, Issues I heard today:
Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---04/20/2016 12:03:18 PM---All, Issues I heard today:
Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---04/20/2016 12:03:18 PM---All, Issues I heard today: