Date   

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@...


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

Rob Skillington
 

+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@...


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

Alena Prokharchyk
 

+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@...


Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Tech Lead nomination for SIG Observability: Bartłomiej Płotka

Ken Haines <Kenneth.Haines@...>
 

+1 NB


Cheers,

Ken



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Liz Rice via lists.cncf.io <liz=lizrice.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 8:40 AM
To: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Tech Lead nomination for SIG Observability: Bartłomiej Płotka
 
+1 binding

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 4:15 PM Marco Pracucci <marco@...> wrote:
+1 NB

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:06 PM Justin Cormack via lists.cncf.io <justin.cormack=docker.com@...> wrote:
+1 binding


On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 11:45 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@...


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

Liz Rice
 

+1 binding

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 4:15 PM Marco Pracucci <marco@...> wrote:
+1 NB

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:06 PM Justin Cormack via lists.cncf.io <justin.cormack=docker.com@...> wrote:
+1 binding


On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 11:45 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@...


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

Marco Pracucci <marco@...>
 

+1 NB

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:06 PM Justin Cormack via lists.cncf.io <justin.cormack=docker.com@...> wrote:
+1 binding


On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 11:45 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@...


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

Justin Cormack
 

+1 binding


On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 11:45 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@...


Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

Gadi Naor
 

-1 NB ... from a security perspective, i cant up vote this project despite my appreciation - at this point I am concerned  on how a fork maintain security patches of mainline k8s.

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:03 AM Jimmy Song <jimmysong@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding

On Aug 2, 2020, at 10:42 AM, wuheng <wuheng@...> wrote:

+1 NB

发自 WPS邮箱客戶端
在 Mofei Zhang <mofei2816@...>,2020年8月1日 19:34写道:

+1 NB


On Jul 31, 2020, at 23:04, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:

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@...

Mofei Zhang
Architect , JD.com
Maintainer , ChubaoFS


--
Gadi NaorCTO

US.   2443 Fillmore St, San Francisco, CA, 94115
IL.    5 Miconis St, Tel Aviv, 6777214   
M. +972-52-6618811
Web.      www.alcide.io
GitHub. github.com/alcideio

Follow us on LinkedInFollow us on Twitter 


Securing Kubernetes & Service Mesh.
Anywhere.
Bridging Security & DevOps.







Agenda for 8/4

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

Hi all,
We'll be meeting tomorrow with a SIG update meeting.

Agenda: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jpoKT12jf2jTf-2EJSAl4iTdA7Aoj_uiI19qIaECNFc/edit#
Presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1197FJB18hUjZHY2A3XsTL8Y46aqJmB4hfESB4-ccHVo/edit#slide=id.g25ca91f87f_0_0

Thanks!

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


Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

김 진용 <jykim@...>
 

+1 NB

 

 

JINYONG KIM 김진용

CEO | 대표이사

 

NexCloud   http://www.nexcloud.co.kr http://www.nexclipper.io

O 02-533-8622  M +82 10-2048-8697  F 02-533-8623
06192 서울특별시 강남구 선릉로 428

 

 

 

 

보낸 사람: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>(wuheng <wuheng@...> 대신)
날짜: 2020 8 2 일요일 오전 11:43
받는 사람: "mofei2816@..." <mofei2816@...>, "ascavarda@..." <ascavarda@...>
참조: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
주제: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

 

+1 NB

 

WPS箱客戶端

Mofei Zhang <mofei2816@...>202081 19:34道:

+1 NB

 



On Jul 31, 2020, at 23:04, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:

 

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@...

 

Mofei Zhang

Architect , JD.com

Maintainer , ChubaoFS

 


Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

Jimmy Song <jimmysong@...>
 

+1 non-binding

On Aug 2, 2020, at 10:42 AM, wuheng <wuheng@...> wrote:

+1 NB

发自 WPS邮箱客戶端
在 Mofei Zhang <mofei2816@...>,2020年8月1日 19:34写道:

+1 NB


On Jul 31, 2020, at 23:04, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:

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@...

Mofei Zhang
Architect , JD.com
Maintainer , ChubaoFS



Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

Justin Cormack
 

+1 binding

k3s has made it clear that it is not a fork and that is not the road it is going down.
It is a distro, and I feel that distros are valuable work in open source, with many examples.
The sandbox is a place for experiments, and allowing it in does not prejudge what road it may
take from here on.

Justin


On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 4:04 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
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

Darren Shepherd
 

I'm probably jumping into the conversation uninformed and without context.  I just want to make it very clear k3s is in no way shape or form a fork.  There is nothing technically correct about calling it a fork. While k3s does include some modifications to k8s code (about 300 lines or less), it is completely inline with the spirit of Linux distributions that carry their own patches for upstream components.  The patches we carry largely have to do with enabling how k3s packages k8s (single binary).

Furthermore k3s has a proven track record already of keeping inline with every k8s minor and patch release. Patch releases are released withing days or in the case of a CVE the same day.  Minor releases sometimes take a couple weeks to deliver, but we are trying to get that to day. We have zero intention of diverging from upstream.

Please, please do not call k3s fork. It isn't a fork. I understand why some might have come to that conclusion, but it's neither technically true or the intention of the project.

Darren


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Bob Wise via lists.cncf.io <bob=bobsplanet.com@...>
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 6:51 AM
To: alexis richardson <alexis@...>
Cc: aprokharchyk@... <aprokharchyk@...>; Joe Beda <jbeda@...>; wisebob@... <wisebob@...>; Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
 
K3s is a distro, and it is a fork as well. The "opinionated" description always applies to distros (which can be more or less opinionated, of course). If the opinion included things like backported security patches (does it?) that are available upstream but not for all versions, then I'd be inclined to agree that the spirit of the distro is not to be a fork.

That does not appear to be the case for K3s, which is a conformant fork. The comments about encouraging mending of fences and contribution upstream are further evidence of the forked nature of the project.

The TOC has distinct if related questions to address:

1) Will the TOC sponsor project forks into sandbox?
2) Will the TOC sponsor project distros into sandbox?
3) Is there something nuanced about sponsoring these into sandbox vs a track towards incubation and graduation?  If the purpose of the sandboxing of K3s were to give it a more neutral home while the forks are upstreamed and fences are mended, then that seems like a reasonable use of sandbox. If the track here is to put a fork onto a graduation path then that is much more concerning.
4) Kubernetes conformance tests are what determine distro eligibility. These tests are always evolving. What happens if a sponsored distro (or fork) stops passing conformance?

FWIW, I agree on the k8s sandbox point.

-Bob


On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:38 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Currently k3s is a distro of k8s.

We used to have a k8s sandbox.  If we still did then k3s would happily live there as a way to show k8s how to be a better project.


On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:17 PM Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...> wrote:
k3s is not a fork of Kubernetes. It is an opinionated way of delivering Kubernetes to IoT and Edge devices. Talking to Kubernetes steering committee made it clear that Kubernetes main design principle is extensibility, and the core system will be maintained to support Kubernetes development/deployment in a generic and configurable way. Therefore projects like k3s could benefit the ecosystem by expanding Kubernetes adoption footprint while remaining standalone.

For the areas where k3s maintainers can contribute back to Kubernetes, we should strongly encourage them to do so. Mending the relationship with Kubernetes community should be the first priority for the health of the project. By accepting k3s to Sandbox we get an opportunity to advise on its contributor experience, sustainability and governance. 

-alena

On Jul 31, 2020, at 11:07 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

-1, nb

+1 to joe & bob comments.
I am very keen to see k3s initiative do well
I am even more keen to see it feed back into K8s

let's find a way to make this work!  I don't know the answer and recognise how unfair this probably seems to the k3s folks





On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:04 PM Joe Beda <jbeda@...> wrote:
-1 non-binding

 

My concerns echo Bob’s.

 

There is a ton to like about k3s.  There is a super enthusiastic user community and it has pioneered bringing together an opinionated set of components with a streamlined experience.  That is awesome!

 

Concrete concerns:
  1. Is k3s a distribution?  Many people publicly refer to it as such. The project page itself (k3s.io) has a headline saying “The certified Kubernetes distribution built for IoT & Edge computing”.
  2. Should the CNCF be a place to host distributions? (purpose discussion for the TOC)
  3. The name is very confusing.  Kubernetes and k8s are synonymous.  In fact, “k8s” is a registered trademark of the LF (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-list/).  I’m not a lawyer, but these clearly commercially overlap and there is confusion in the marketplace. The LF may need to take action here regardless of the TOC decision.
  4. The places where k3s has made progress has, traditionally, included essentially forking parts of k8s and rebuilding.  That forking has gotten thinner over time but is still there.  There are promises around pushing changes upstream, but, to my knowledge, that has been minimal.  The relationship there is fraught with a lot of history of friction and conflict.
  5. [point in time concern] The project is still pretty entangled with the rest of Rancher.  This can be solved but obviously hasn’t been a priority.  An example is that the documentation for k3s is part of the Rancher docs repo.  Would the docs be included in the assets that come into the CNCF?
    1. The repo is also part of the Rancher org.  The set of code owners is hidden and looks to be driven exclusively by Rancher (https://github.com/rancher/k3s/blob/master/CODEOWNERS).

 

There are a lot of thorny issues here. I have confidence in the TOC to be able to detangle these.

 

Thanks,
Joe

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:14 AM
To: aprokharchyk@... <aprokharchyk@...>, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [Suspected Spam] Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
-1 non-binding.

 

I’m deeply concerned about the idea that CNCF is accepting what appears to be a Kubernetes fork into sandbox.

 

The statements about “encouraging upstream” seem like good intentions only.

 

Kubernetes as a project has, in my opinion, succeeded in part because of the community dedication to staying upstream and not forking.

 

For clarity, I would be strongly in favor of k3s being part of Kubernetes upstream.

 

-Bob

 

 

 

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io" <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...>
Reply-To: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>
Date: Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:09 AM
To: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.

 

+1 binding.

 

-alena.



On Jul 31, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:

 

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

Brendan Burns
 

+1, binding.



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Sheng Liang via lists.cncf.io <sheng=rancher.com@...>
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 7:47 AM
To: liz@... <liz@...>
Cc: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
 
+1 binding

On Aug 2, 2020 12:13 AM, "Liz Rice via lists.cncf.io" <liz=lizrice.com@...> wrote:
+1 binding



On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 09:22, Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:
+1 NB

I see it as a learning tool, which has merit in and as of itself.
Similar to how Cortex and Thanos help shape the future for Prometheus,
k3s can act as a canonical proving ground of sorts before taking
things upstream.

While not distinct projects themselves, both prometheus-community and
prometheus-operator (recently moved out of its old coreos/ home) also
help shape and advance core Prometheus. k3s just happens to have more
people on it than the two prometheus-* mentioned here.

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 5:04 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin
<ascavarda@...> wrote:
>
> 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

Liz Rice
 

Per Bob's point 3, k3s want a neutral home for further experimentation and collaboration; in my opinion it is undoubtedly cloud native, and it solves a particular problem in a way that lots of folks find useful, so (again IMO) CNCF is the natural organization for it to get that neutral home. 

Should that be within k8s or as a standalone project? After the conversation with k8s Steering I believe a separate project is the path where k3s is most likely to succeed at this stage, and it doesn't place any new requirements or burden on the k8s team. As Alena, Michelle and others have mentioned, being part of the same foundation gives us an opportunity for better communication and alignment between projects going forward. 

k3s have stated their intention to remain conformant, and that's a big part of why I think there is potential for success here. 


On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 2:51 PM Bob Wise <bob@...> wrote:
K3s is a distro, and it is a fork as well. The "opinionated" description always applies to distros (which can be more or less opinionated, of course). If the opinion included things like backported security patches (does it?) that are available upstream but not for all versions, then I'd be inclined to agree that the spirit of the distro is not to be a fork.

That does not appear to be the case for K3s, which is a conformant fork. The comments about encouraging mending of fences and contribution upstream are further evidence of the forked nature of the project.

The TOC has distinct if related questions to address:

1) Will the TOC sponsor project forks into sandbox?
2) Will the TOC sponsor project distros into sandbox?
3) Is there something nuanced about sponsoring these into sandbox vs a track towards incubation and graduation?  If the purpose of the sandboxing of K3s were to give it a more neutral home while the forks are upstreamed and fences are mended, then that seems like a reasonable use of sandbox. If the track here is to put a fork onto a graduation path then that is much more concerning.
4) Kubernetes conformance tests are what determine distro eligibility. These tests are always evolving. What happens if a sponsored distro (or fork) stops passing conformance?

FWIW, I agree on the k8s sandbox point.

-Bob


On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:38 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Currently k3s is a distro of k8s.

We used to have a k8s sandbox.  If we still did then k3s would happily live there as a way to show k8s how to be a better project.


On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:17 PM Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...> wrote:
k3s is not a fork of Kubernetes. It is an opinionated way of delivering Kubernetes to IoT and Edge devices. Talking to Kubernetes steering committee made it clear that Kubernetes main design principle is extensibility, and the core system will be maintained to support Kubernetes development/deployment in a generic and configurable way. Therefore projects like k3s could benefit the ecosystem by expanding Kubernetes adoption footprint while remaining standalone.

For the areas where k3s maintainers can contribute back to Kubernetes, we should strongly encourage them to do so. Mending the relationship with Kubernetes community should be the first priority for the health of the project. By accepting k3s to Sandbox we get an opportunity to advise on its contributor experience, sustainability and governance. 

-alena

On Jul 31, 2020, at 11:07 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

-1, nb

+1 to joe & bob comments.
I am very keen to see k3s initiative do well
I am even more keen to see it feed back into K8s

let's find a way to make this work!  I don't know the answer and recognise how unfair this probably seems to the k3s folks





On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:04 PM Joe Beda <jbeda@...> wrote:
-1 non-binding

 

My concerns echo Bob’s.

 

There is a ton to like about k3s.  There is a super enthusiastic user community and it has pioneered bringing together an opinionated set of components with a streamlined experience.  That is awesome!

 

Concrete concerns:
  1. Is k3s a distribution?  Many people publicly refer to it as such. The project page itself (k3s.io) has a headline saying “The certified Kubernetes distribution built for IoT & Edge computing”.
  2. Should the CNCF be a place to host distributions? (purpose discussion for the TOC)
  3. The name is very confusing.  Kubernetes and k8s are synonymous.  In fact, “k8s” is a registered trademark of the LF (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-list/).  I’m not a lawyer, but these clearly commercially overlap and there is confusion in the marketplace. The LF may need to take action here regardless of the TOC decision.
  4. The places where k3s has made progress has, traditionally, included essentially forking parts of k8s and rebuilding.  That forking has gotten thinner over time but is still there.  There are promises around pushing changes upstream, but, to my knowledge, that has been minimal.  The relationship there is fraught with a lot of history of friction and conflict.
  5. [point in time concern] The project is still pretty entangled with the rest of Rancher.  This can be solved but obviously hasn’t been a priority.  An example is that the documentation for k3s is part of the Rancher docs repo.  Would the docs be included in the assets that come into the CNCF?
    1. The repo is also part of the Rancher org.  The set of code owners is hidden and looks to be driven exclusively by Rancher (https://github.com/rancher/k3s/blob/master/CODEOWNERS).

 

There are a lot of thorny issues here. I have confidence in the TOC to be able to detangle these.

 

Thanks,
Joe

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:14 AM
To: aprokharchyk@... <aprokharchyk@...>, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [Suspected Spam] Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
-1 non-binding.

 

I’m deeply concerned about the idea that CNCF is accepting what appears to be a Kubernetes fork into sandbox.

 

The statements about “encouraging upstream” seem like good intentions only.

 

Kubernetes as a project has, in my opinion, succeeded in part because of the community dedication to staying upstream and not forking.

 

For clarity, I would be strongly in favor of k3s being part of Kubernetes upstream.

 

-Bob

 

 

 

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io" <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...>
Reply-To: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>
Date: Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:09 AM
To: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.

 

+1 binding.

 

-alena.



On Jul 31, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:

 

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

Bob Wise
 

K3s is a distro, and it is a fork as well. The "opinionated" description always applies to distros (which can be more or less opinionated, of course). If the opinion included things like backported security patches (does it?) that are available upstream but not for all versions, then I'd be inclined to agree that the spirit of the distro is not to be a fork.

That does not appear to be the case for K3s, which is a conformant fork. The comments about encouraging mending of fences and contribution upstream are further evidence of the forked nature of the project.

The TOC has distinct if related questions to address:

1) Will the TOC sponsor project forks into sandbox?
2) Will the TOC sponsor project distros into sandbox?
3) Is there something nuanced about sponsoring these into sandbox vs a track towards incubation and graduation?  If the purpose of the sandboxing of K3s were to give it a more neutral home while the forks are upstreamed and fences are mended, then that seems like a reasonable use of sandbox. If the track here is to put a fork onto a graduation path then that is much more concerning.
4) Kubernetes conformance tests are what determine distro eligibility. These tests are always evolving. What happens if a sponsored distro (or fork) stops passing conformance?

FWIW, I agree on the k8s sandbox point.

-Bob


On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:38 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Currently k3s is a distro of k8s.

We used to have a k8s sandbox.  If we still did then k3s would happily live there as a way to show k8s how to be a better project.


On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:17 PM Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...> wrote:
k3s is not a fork of Kubernetes. It is an opinionated way of delivering Kubernetes to IoT and Edge devices. Talking to Kubernetes steering committee made it clear that Kubernetes main design principle is extensibility, and the core system will be maintained to support Kubernetes development/deployment in a generic and configurable way. Therefore projects like k3s could benefit the ecosystem by expanding Kubernetes adoption footprint while remaining standalone.

For the areas where k3s maintainers can contribute back to Kubernetes, we should strongly encourage them to do so. Mending the relationship with Kubernetes community should be the first priority for the health of the project. By accepting k3s to Sandbox we get an opportunity to advise on its contributor experience, sustainability and governance. 

-alena

On Jul 31, 2020, at 11:07 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

-1, nb

+1 to joe & bob comments.
I am very keen to see k3s initiative do well
I am even more keen to see it feed back into K8s

let's find a way to make this work!  I don't know the answer and recognise how unfair this probably seems to the k3s folks





On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:04 PM Joe Beda <jbeda@...> wrote:
-1 non-binding

 

My concerns echo Bob’s.

 

There is a ton to like about k3s.  There is a super enthusiastic user community and it has pioneered bringing together an opinionated set of components with a streamlined experience.  That is awesome!

 

Concrete concerns:
  1. Is k3s a distribution?  Many people publicly refer to it as such. The project page itself (k3s.io) has a headline saying “The certified Kubernetes distribution built for IoT & Edge computing”.
  2. Should the CNCF be a place to host distributions? (purpose discussion for the TOC)
  3. The name is very confusing.  Kubernetes and k8s are synonymous.  In fact, “k8s” is a registered trademark of the LF (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-list/).  I’m not a lawyer, but these clearly commercially overlap and there is confusion in the marketplace. The LF may need to take action here regardless of the TOC decision.
  4. The places where k3s has made progress has, traditionally, included essentially forking parts of k8s and rebuilding.  That forking has gotten thinner over time but is still there.  There are promises around pushing changes upstream, but, to my knowledge, that has been minimal.  The relationship there is fraught with a lot of history of friction and conflict.
  5. [point in time concern] The project is still pretty entangled with the rest of Rancher.  This can be solved but obviously hasn’t been a priority.  An example is that the documentation for k3s is part of the Rancher docs repo.  Would the docs be included in the assets that come into the CNCF?
    1. The repo is also part of the Rancher org.  The set of code owners is hidden and looks to be driven exclusively by Rancher (https://github.com/rancher/k3s/blob/master/CODEOWNERS).

 

There are a lot of thorny issues here. I have confidence in the TOC to be able to detangle these.

 

Thanks,
Joe

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:14 AM
To: aprokharchyk@... <aprokharchyk@...>, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [Suspected Spam] Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
-1 non-binding.

 

I’m deeply concerned about the idea that CNCF is accepting what appears to be a Kubernetes fork into sandbox.

 

The statements about “encouraging upstream” seem like good intentions only.

 

Kubernetes as a project has, in my opinion, succeeded in part because of the community dedication to staying upstream and not forking.

 

For clarity, I would be strongly in favor of k3s being part of Kubernetes upstream.

 

-Bob

 

 

 

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io" <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...>
Reply-To: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>
Date: Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:09 AM
To: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.

 

+1 binding.

 

-alena.



On Jul 31, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:

 

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@...

 

 




2061 - 2080 of 7189