Date   

Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

Saad Ali
 

Abstain

Unfortunately I missed the "Joint CNCF TOC/Kubernetes Steering Committee" meeting. But I talked to some folks afterwards to fill me in.

Overall, I'd like to avoid setting precedent that a project unable to generate consensus within the Kubernetes community, can bypass the community by going straight to the CNCF.
While that may not be what happened here, k3s feels very similar to Kind (https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kind) and minikube (https://github.com/kubernetes/minikube) both of which are Kubernetes sub-projects.
I would like to to see k3s follow the same approach as those projects and apply to become a k8s sub-project first, rather than a standalone CNCF sandbox project.
This would ensure consistency, and give me confidence that Kubernetes experts have reviewed the project. Even if the k8s community ultimately says no, it wouldn't mean automatic no for a stand alone CNCF project, but would provide valuable insight for a CNCF application.
While I realize that building technical consensus is hard, especially in a project as large as Kubernetes, I believe doing so is critical for healthy communities.

Why not vote "-1"? The revised CNCF Sandbox project guidelines lower the bar for sandbox, making it a *tool* that can be used by anyone who needs a neutral place to host IP and collaborate on new projects with minimal overhead rather then a stepping stone towards incubation/graduation. This lets the TOC and CNCF SIGs to be more discriminating for incubation/graduation projects (only accept projects at that level that "makes sense in the CNCF ecosystem") while allowing the sandbox to serve as a test bed for innovation.


Re: [VOTE] TiKV Graduation

Liu Tang
 

+1, NB


Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

Reitbauer, Alois
 

+1 nb

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Phil Estes via lists.cncf.io" <estesp=gmail.com@...>
Reply to: "estesp@..." <estesp@...>
Date: Friday, 31. July 2020 at 17:13
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

 

+1 nb

  • Phil Estes

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


Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

Sheng Liang <sheng@...>
 

+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
 

+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

wuheng
 

+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

Mofei Zhang
 

+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

Richard Hartmann
 

+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

Matt Farina
 

+1 nb

I appreciate that the TOC took the time to talk with the Kubernetes Steering Committee prior to calling for a vote. I can't imagine a vote moving forward without their blessing. It's great that the TOC took the time to do that.

As a maintainer that maintains a CNCF project that came out from under the Kubernetes umbrella, I understand how there is more than just an association when being a sub-project of another project. Kubernetes has certain ways it does things. And, it's easy for sub-projects to get lost in that setup. If people have a different style of maintaining it can be really useful for that project to live elsewhere.

If folks don't know, if a project like k3s were to join Kubernetes as a sub-project their governance, CI, and processes would all need to change to conform to Kubernetes. This is one of the ways the Kubernetes projects manages to many people and so much work. There are standards and processes that need to be followed. It makes things far easier on the project.

Kubernetes has now had several projects move out from it's umbrella to be CNCF projects. It's great to watch projects grow enough that they can be separate projects on their own.

I read there's concern about projects being entangled with companies when they join the CNCF. In this case, Rancher. I've seen this before as I've watched the CNCF grow. It happened with a recent incubation project ... it's not just a sandbox thing. The CNCF staff does a good job of guiding the projects to straighten this stuff out given a little time and patience. I wouldn't consider this a blocker... more a task to be worked out if k3s goes in to the CNCF.

I also want to point out that it's hard and time consuming to get architecture changes into upstream Kubernetes. Sometimes they aren't even going to happen for various reasons... even if it would be useful. An alternative place to prove out proposed changes would give them a higher likelihood of getting into Kubernetes itself. It would also prove out that there are people who can maintain those changes. This is why I like k3s trying something out and proving it's useful and can work.

- Matt

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020, at 2:57 PM, Michelle Noorali wrote:
+1 binding 
  • I think this is an opportunity for us to create forums/feedback loops and improve communication between distribution like projects and core projects where it makes sense.
  • If Kind or Minikube ever wanted to pop out from under the Kubernetes umbrella, I'd support those projects being under the CNCF as well.
  • We have certain graduation requirements for specs. I'd like to continue having discussions around whether there should be specific/additional graduation requirements for distributions. For now, I'm looking forward to seeing how the neutral IP space and focus on collaboration with the CNCF community further shapes the project and community.
Best,

Michelle Noorali

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:38 PM 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

Christian Posta
 

Big fan of k3s!
+1 NB


On Fri, 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@...



--
Christian Posta
twitter: @christianposta




Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

Michelle Noorali <michelle.noorali@...>
 

+1 binding 
  • I think this is an opportunity for us to create forums/feedback loops and improve communication between distribution like projects and core projects where it makes sense.
  • If Kind or Minikube ever wanted to pop out from under the Kubernetes umbrella, I'd support those projects being under the CNCF as well.
  • We have certain graduation requirements for specs. I'd like to continue having discussions around whether there should be specific/additional graduation requirements for distributions. For now, I'm looking forward to seeing how the neutral IP space and focus on collaboration with the CNCF community further shapes the project and community.
Best,

Michelle Noorali


On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:38 PM 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

alexis richardson
 

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

Gou Rao <grao@...>
 

+1 nb 

On Fri, 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

Alena Prokharchyk
 

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

Jonah Kowall
 

-1 NB for the same reasons echoed above. I would be quiet since there seemed to be a large consensus to accept it, but it seems like a poor precedent.

Similarly, I feel that Thanos and Cortex are similar enough that they should merge versus having two such projects under CNCF that have nearly identical architectures and lots of shared code. 


Jonah Kowall
CTO

Text/Call: +1-617-500-3575


On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:02 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@lists.cncf.io <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io>
Date: Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:14 AM
To: aprokharchyk@apple.com <aprokharchyk@apple.com>, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io>
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@lists.cncf.io> on behalf of "Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io" <aprokharchyk=apple.com@lists.cncf.io>
Reply-To: "aprokharchyk@apple.com" <aprokharchyk@apple.com>
Date: Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:09 AM
To: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io>
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@linuxfoundation.org> 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@linuxfoundation.org

 

 



Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox

alexis richardson
 

-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

Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
 

-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 (AWS)
 

-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

Alena Prokharchyk
 

+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

Matt Klein
 

+1


On Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 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@...

2081 - 2100 of 7189