|
Re: [SIG-Security] Nomination of Emily Fox as co-chair
Frederick Kautz
+1 nb, Emily is extremely knowledgeable and generous. We would be fortunate to have her in this role.
+1000 - Emily is a perfect fit from my perspective.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 6:00 AM Sarah Allen < sarah@...> wrote: JJ already mentioned me in original email, but wanted to add my official +1
As SIG-Security co-chair, I strongly support the nomination of Emily Fox!
Also, I wanted to add my thanks to out-going chair Dan Shaw, whose leadership has been critical in creating a strong community for SIG-Security.
Sarah Allen @ultrasaurus
+1 I follow along mostly via meeting recordings and on Slack but from what I can tell, she seems perfect for the role!
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 6:07 PM Chase Pettet < cpettet@...> wrote: Emily is a wonderfull collaborator and human being. Strongly support. On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 5:13 PM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...> wrote: Dear Technical Oversight Committee,
Dan Shaw’s term as co-chair of SIG-Security has come to an end. We would like to nominate Emily Fox as a new co-chair of SIG-Security (requiring a 2/3rd vote in compliance with the cncf-sig elections process).
Following are some of Emily’s accomplishments
Thanks! JJ in collaboration with other SIG-Security co-chairs (Dan and Sarah) and TOC Liaisons Liz Rice & Justin Cormack
--
--
Securing Kubernetes & Service Mesh.
Anywhere. Bridging Security & DevOps.
|
|
|
Re: [SIG-Security] Nomination of Emily Fox as co-chair
+1000 - Emily is a perfect fit from my perspective.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 6:00 AM Sarah Allen < sarah@...> wrote: JJ already mentioned me in original email, but wanted to add my official +1
As SIG-Security co-chair, I strongly support the nomination of Emily Fox!
Also, I wanted to add my thanks to out-going chair Dan Shaw, whose leadership has been critical in creating a strong community for SIG-Security.
Sarah Allen @ultrasaurus
+1 I follow along mostly via meeting recordings and on Slack but from what I can tell, she seems perfect for the role!
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 6:07 PM Chase Pettet < cpettet@...> wrote: Emily is a wonderfull collaborator and human being. Strongly support. On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 5:13 PM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...> wrote: Dear Technical Oversight Committee,
Dan Shaw’s term as co-chair of SIG-Security has come to an end. We would like to nominate Emily Fox as a new co-chair of SIG-Security (requiring a 2/3rd vote in compliance with the cncf-sig elections process).
Following are some of Emily’s accomplishments
Thanks! JJ in collaboration with other SIG-Security co-chairs (Dan and Sarah) and TOC Liaisons Liz Rice & Justin Cormack
--
--
Securing Kubernetes & Service Mesh.
Anywhere. Bridging Security & DevOps.
|
|
|
Re: [SIG-Security] Nomination of Emily Fox as co-chair
JJ already mentioned me in original email, but wanted to add my official +1
As SIG-Security co-chair, I strongly support the nomination of Emily Fox!
Also, I wanted to add my thanks to out-going chair Dan Shaw, whose leadership has been critical in creating a strong community for SIG-Security.
Sarah Allen @ultrasaurus
+1 I follow along mostly via meeting recordings and on Slack but from what I can tell, she seems perfect for the role!
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 6:07 PM Chase Pettet < cpettet@...> wrote: Emily is a wonderfull collaborator and human being. Strongly support. On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 5:13 PM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...> wrote: Dear Technical Oversight Committee,
Dan Shaw’s term as co-chair of SIG-Security has come to an end. We would like to nominate Emily Fox as a new co-chair of SIG-Security (requiring a 2/3rd vote in compliance with the cncf-sig elections process).
Following are some of Emily’s accomplishments
Thanks! JJ in collaboration with other SIG-Security co-chairs (Dan and Sarah) and TOC Liaisons Liz Rice & Justin Cormack
--
|
|
|
Re: [SIG-Security] Nomination of Emily Fox as co-chair
+1 I follow along mostly via meeting recordings and on Slack but from what I can tell, she seems perfect for the role!
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 6:07 PM Chase Pettet < cpettet@...> wrote: Emily is a wonderfull collaborator and human being. Strongly support. On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 5:13 PM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...> wrote: Dear Technical Oversight Committee,
Dan Shaw’s term as co-chair of SIG-Security has come to an end. We would like to nominate Emily Fox as a new co-chair of SIG-Security (requiring a 2/3rd vote in compliance with the cncf-sig elections process).
Following are some of Emily’s accomplishments
Thanks! JJ in collaboration with other SIG-Security co-chairs (Dan and Sarah) and TOC Liaisons Liz Rice & Justin Cormack
|
|
|
Re: [SIG-Security] Nomination of Emily Fox as co-chair
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 6:07 PM Chase Pettet < cpettet@...> wrote: Emily is a wonderfull collaborator and human being. Strongly support. On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 5:13 PM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...> wrote: Dear Technical Oversight Committee,
Dan Shaw’s term as co-chair of SIG-Security has come to an end. We would like to nominate Emily Fox as a new co-chair of SIG-Security (requiring a 2/3rd vote in compliance with the cncf-sig elections process).
Following are some of Emily’s accomplishments
Thanks! JJ in collaboration with other SIG-Security co-chairs (Dan and Sarah) and TOC Liaisons Liz Rice & Justin Cormack
|
|
|
Re: [SIG-Security] Nomination of Emily Fox as co-chair
Emily is a wonderfull collaborator and human being. Strongly support.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 5:13 PM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...> wrote: Dear Technical Oversight Committee,
Dan Shaw’s term as co-chair of SIG-Security has come to an end. We would like to nominate Emily Fox as a new co-chair of SIG-Security (requiring a 2/3rd vote in compliance with the cncf-sig elections process).
Following are some of Emily’s accomplishments
Thanks! JJ in collaboration with other SIG-Security co-chairs (Dan and Sarah) and TOC Liaisons Liz Rice & Justin Cormack
|
|
|
Re: [SIG-Security] Nomination of Emily Fox as co-chair
I think Emily is a great candidate for the role and I support the nomination!
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 8:43 PM Justin Cappos < jcappos@...> wrote: I'd like to strongly support. She will be great in the role!
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 6:13 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...> wrote: Dear Technical Oversight Committee,
Dan Shaw’s term as co-chair of SIG-Security has come to an end. We would like to nominate Emily Fox as a new co-chair of SIG-Security (requiring a 2/3rd vote in compliance with the cncf-sig elections process).
Following are some of Emily’s accomplishments
Thanks! JJ in collaboration with other SIG-Security co-chairs (Dan and Sarah) and TOC Liaisons Liz Rice & Justin Cormack
|
|
|
Re: [SIG-Security] Nomination of Emily Fox as co-chair
Justin Cappos <jcappos@...>
I'd like to strongly support. She will be great in the role!
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 6:13 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi < jj@...> wrote: Dear Technical Oversight Committee,
Dan Shaw’s term as co-chair of SIG-Security has come to an end. We would like to nominate Emily Fox as a new co-chair of SIG-Security (requiring a 2/3rd vote in compliance with the cncf-sig elections process).
Following are some of Emily’s accomplishments
Thanks! JJ in collaboration with other SIG-Security co-chairs (Dan and Sarah) and TOC Liaisons Liz Rice & Justin Cormack
|
|
|
[SIG-Security] Nomination of Emily Fox as co-chair
Dear Technical Oversight Committee,
Dan Shaw’s term as co-chair of SIG-Security has come to an end. We would like to nominate Emily Fox as a new co-chair of SIG-Security (requiring a 2/3rd vote in compliance with the cncf-sig elections process).
Following are some of Emily’s accomplishments
Thanks! JJ in collaboration with other SIG-Security co-chairs (Dan and Sarah) and TOC Liaisons Liz Rice & Justin Cormack
|
|
|
Re: Sandbox Projects included from September 8 TOC meeting
The OpenKruise project agree with the Sig App's assessment completely. We, too, believe while up-streaming some of the features to the core workloads is possible, the majority of the controllers and features is best to remain as a separate project.
Best regards,
Andy Shi
|
|
|
Re: Sandbox Projects included from September 8 TOC meeting
We discussed OpenKruise in Kubernetes SIG Apps. I can now answer questions asked of SIG Apps. In the meeting what OpenKruise is building was discussed along with how things could operate between SIG Apps as a sandbox project or K8s SIG sponsored project.
We're happy to see these experiments and want to support them, but we wondered if it makes more sense for them to belong within the purview of the Kubernetes project rather than as a standalone project?
Experiments happen all over. For example, OpenShift's work lead to what we now have as the Workloads APIs. We don't believe they need or should be part of the Kubernetes project. It is perfectly fine for them to be either k8s SIG sponsored projects, CNCF projects, or some other project.
In this case OpenKruise desires to operate as a sandbox project and SIG Apps is supportive of that. We have a path to collaborate as needed.
My understanding is that OpenKruise intends to eventually contribute successful experiments to upstream Kubernetes anyway.
This is more difficult. Upstream Kubernetes won't likely accept every new type of controller. The direction is generally to have them installed as 3rd party controllers. The bar to move something into core Kubernetes is now very high.
Some successful features may make it into Kubernetes core. Others will likely always be recommended to be handled as 3rd party.
OpenKruise can have successful 3rd party CRDs and controllers that do not go into Kubernetes itself. I expect this case to be likely.
If the Kubernetes project would actually prefer these experiments to take place in a separate project, does that make OpenKruise the natural home for all workload-related CRD ideas, or some other scope?
SIG Apps does not believe there should be one home for "all workload-related CRD ideas". They can happen in many places and innovation can happen under many projects. How those projects organize around people and governance may vary.
I hope this helps answer the questions of SIG Apps. If there are more I'm happy to try and chase them down.
And, thanks for pointing OpenKruise at SIG Apps. It lead to a good conversation.
Regards,
Matt Farina
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020, at 2:04 PM, Xiang Li wrote:
(I am familiar with the team behind the project, and the background of the project).
For any sizable companies using Kubeternetes, it is not uncommon to have tens of generic controllers that are not specific to any particular application.
The motivation of OpenKruise project is to find a subset of these controllers that are commonly useful to a number of users rather than just one company. So we can reduce some duplication, improve collaboration and help the community to grow.
Yes, if some enhancements or workload types are popular enough that everyone wants then, we hope them to be upstreamed to Kubernetes project itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Liz Rice <liz@...>
Sent At:2020 Sep. 9 (Wed.) 10:39
To:Matt Farina <matt@...>
Cc:CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject:Re: [cncf-toc] Sandbox Projects included from September 8 TOC meeting
OpenKruise is experimenting with a number of workload-related resource definitions, some of which are enhancements to existing core K8s resources. We're happy to see these experiments and want to support them, but we wondered if it makes more sense for them to belong within the purview of the Kubernetes project rather than as a standalone project? My understanding is that OpenKruise intends to eventually contribute successful experiments to upstream Kubernetes anyway.
There's also a question about project scope. If the Kubernetes project would actually prefer these experiments to take place in a separate project, does that make OpenKruise the natural home for all workload-related CRD ideas, or some other scope?
The discussion was recorded (I'm sure Amy can provide the link if she hasn't already circulated it) and that might be worth listening to for more context, if you have the time.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:21 PM Matt Farina < matt@...> wrote:
OpenKruise has reached out to Kubernetes SIG Apps and we will discuss the project.
For context, why would the TOC suggest OpenKruise fall under k8s instead of being it's own CNCF sandbox project?
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020, at 4:05 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin wrote:
The projects included are:
Backstage
Tremor
metal3-io
Porter
OpenYurt
Open Service Mesh
Other projects not brought to vote:
checkov - further conversation needed re: roadmap, holding for updated roadmap
Dataset Lifecycle Framework - next steps: TOC conversation with SIG Storage, Kubernetes COSI KEP
OpenKruise - discussion with Kubernetes Steering Committee needed, SIG Apps - should this be a subproject?
Predator - no clear roadmap, resubmit with clearer roadmap
SchemaHero - no clear roadmap, resubmit with clearer roadmap
Keylime - scheduled for next closed meeting, September 22
As part of this process, we've now added a new question to the sandbox proposal form: "Why do you want to contribute your project to the CNCF? What would you like to get out of being part of the CNCF?"
Welcome to these new sandbox projects!
--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...
|
|
|
I believe similar point about the core-project/heart-of-the-system maintainership is raised on the past graduation proposal
|
|
|
+1 thanks Torin
(TOC folks - this seems an interesting model we should think about in the broader discussion of governance models / steering committees)
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 22:28, Saad Ali < saadali@...> wrote: Great, thank you for the clarification!
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:22 PM Torin Sandall < torin@...> wrote: No, it’s an organization vote meaning each organization can only vote once. On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:20 PM Saad Ali < saadali@...> wrote: Got it. Since, 4/8 maintainers are from a single organization and changes require 2/3 majority, does that mean a single organization could effectively veto any changes?
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:05 PM Torin Sandall < torin@...> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 4:18 PM Saad Ali < saadali@...> wrote: Thank you for the clarification Torin! Hi Liz,
To your comment, the OPA governance model protects against one organization unfairly controlling any part of the project (including the open-policy-agent/opa repository) by allowing any maintainer (from any repository) to call for an update to the model (this is covered by the "Changes in Governance" section).
The governance doc says "All changes in Governance require a 2/3 majority organization vote from all areas of expertise." The model we have in place balances (i) the desire for experts on a repository to make decisions for that repository and (ii) for the OPA contributor community to take action if one or more organizations starts misbehaving. Sustained contributors for each repository make decisions for what goes into that repository, but if those contributors begin making decisions that are not in the interest of the broader community, the OPA governance model allows maintainers from other repositories to step in and take corrective action. The model is based on the premise that maintainers are acting in the best interest of the community, but it recognizes that exceptions can occur and accounts for that. https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md#changes-in-governance
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 3:27 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: I am a big fan of OPA, and in general the project seems to be going well. But it does give me pause to see that open-policy-agent/opa (in particular) is controlled by one organisation
Liz On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 00:42, Maor Goldberg < maor@...> wrote: Thank you for the clarification Torin, appreciate it.
My intention was to highlight the need and to hopefully encourage other organizations to join and help your team. We are participating in the community meetings for a long time now and can only applaud everything that Styra is doing.
Congratulations and good luck!
Hi All,
Maor from apolicy.io sent a follow up email asking about organization responsibilities for different repos. This is all covered in the MAINTAINER.md file: # Maintainers
The following table lists OPA project maintainers and areas of expertise in alphabetical order:
| Name | GitHub | Email | Organization | Repositories/Area of Expertise | Added/Renewed On |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ash Narkar | @ashutosh-narkar | anarkar4387@... | Styra | opa, opa-istio-plugin | 2020-04-14 |
| Craig Tabita | @ctab | ctab@... | Google | gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Max Smythe | @maxsmythe | smythe@... | Google | frameworks/constraints, gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Patrick East | @patrick-east | east.patrick@... | Styra | opa | 2020-04-14 |
| Rita Zhang | @ritazh | rita.z.zhang@... | Microsoft | frameworks/constraints, gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Sertaç Özercan | @sozercan | sozercan@... | Microsoft | gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Tim Hinrichs | @timothyhinrichs | timothy.l.hinrichs@... | Styra | all repositories | 2020-04-14 |
| Torin Sandall | @tsandall | torinsandall@... | Styra | all repositories | 2020-04-14 | We also have non-voting folks w/ write access on certain repos, which is valuable for onboarding new contributors to admin the project on a day-to-day basis w/o inheriting full voting rights that are essentially a conflict resolution mechanism for when other attempts to reach consensus fail. Here's a summary of contributor organizations w/ write across across major repos under the open-policy-agent org: * open-policy-agent/conftest - DataWorkz, Plex, Red Hat,Snyk, Styra * open-policy-agent/frameworks - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/gatekeeper - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/gatekeeper-library - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/opa - Styra * open-policy-agent/opa-envoy-plugin - Styra We're always looking for folks that are interested in making long-term sustained contributions. If you're interested, please get in touch. On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:05 PM Torin Sandall < torin@...> wrote: Hi Maor,
Gatekeeper is not a separate project--it's a part of the OPA project. Microsoft and Google are maintainers of Gatekeeper as well as OPA, meaning all three organizations have the voting rights that go along with maintainership as outlined in our MAINTAINERS.md and GOVERNANCE.md files: https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.mdhttps://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
As far as plans for more organizations go, we have a governance process defined that outlines how new maintainers can be added. It requires a proposal from an existing maintainer and a vote from the other maintainers. That would likely occur after someone has made sustained contributions over a period of time. Note, the governance model allows for individuals to be granted permission to admin repos on GitHub without being granted full voting rights to onboard external efforts within OPA (this is how open-policy-agent/conftest is currently managed.)
-Torin
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:03 PM Maor Goldberg < maor@...> wrote:
Great news and congratulations to the OPA team, great project and a cornerstone for the cloud native enterprise.
Looking at the maintainer status on the project, I wonder if there’s a plan to add more organizations? I believe there’s only one organization (Styra) with maintainer status on the OPA project while Google and Microsoft only maintain the Gatekeeper project (my understanding is that Gatekeeper is a separate project).
I think it will be great to see more than one organization sharing responsibility and leadership for this important project.
Good luck, Maor.
<PastedGraphic-1.tiff>
Folks
The public comment period is now open for 2 weeks, and all SIGs, end users, TOC members, and community members are welcome to comment by replying to this thread.
Brendan Burns
--
--
--
--
|
|
|
Great, thank you for the clarification!
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:22 PM Torin Sandall < torin@...> wrote: No, it’s an organization vote meaning each organization can only vote once. On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:20 PM Saad Ali < saadali@...> wrote: Got it. Since, 4/8 maintainers are from a single organization and changes require 2/3 majority, does that mean a single organization could effectively veto any changes?
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:05 PM Torin Sandall < torin@...> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 4:18 PM Saad Ali < saadali@...> wrote: Thank you for the clarification Torin! Hi Liz,
To your comment, the OPA governance model protects against one organization unfairly controlling any part of the project (including the open-policy-agent/opa repository) by allowing any maintainer (from any repository) to call for an update to the model (this is covered by the "Changes in Governance" section).
The governance doc says "All changes in Governance require a 2/3 majority organization vote from all areas of expertise." The model we have in place balances (i) the desire for experts on a repository to make decisions for that repository and (ii) for the OPA contributor community to take action if one or more organizations starts misbehaving. Sustained contributors for each repository make decisions for what goes into that repository, but if those contributors begin making decisions that are not in the interest of the broader community, the OPA governance model allows maintainers from other repositories to step in and take corrective action. The model is based on the premise that maintainers are acting in the best interest of the community, but it recognizes that exceptions can occur and accounts for that. https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md#changes-in-governance
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 3:27 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: I am a big fan of OPA, and in general the project seems to be going well. But it does give me pause to see that open-policy-agent/opa (in particular) is controlled by one organisation
Liz On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 00:42, Maor Goldberg < maor@...> wrote: Thank you for the clarification Torin, appreciate it.
My intention was to highlight the need and to hopefully encourage other organizations to join and help your team. We are participating in the community meetings for a long time now and can only applaud everything that Styra is doing.
Congratulations and good luck!
Hi All,
Maor from apolicy.io sent a follow up email asking about organization responsibilities for different repos. This is all covered in the MAINTAINER.md file: # Maintainers
The following table lists OPA project maintainers and areas of expertise in alphabetical order:
| Name | GitHub | Email | Organization | Repositories/Area of Expertise | Added/Renewed On |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ash Narkar | @ashutosh-narkar | anarkar4387@... | Styra | opa, opa-istio-plugin | 2020-04-14 |
| Craig Tabita | @ctab | ctab@... | Google | gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Max Smythe | @maxsmythe | smythe@... | Google | frameworks/constraints, gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Patrick East | @patrick-east | east.patrick@... | Styra | opa | 2020-04-14 |
| Rita Zhang | @ritazh | rita.z.zhang@... | Microsoft | frameworks/constraints, gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Sertaç Özercan | @sozercan | sozercan@... | Microsoft | gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Tim Hinrichs | @timothyhinrichs | timothy.l.hinrichs@... | Styra | all repositories | 2020-04-14 |
| Torin Sandall | @tsandall | torinsandall@... | Styra | all repositories | 2020-04-14 | We also have non-voting folks w/ write access on certain repos, which is valuable for onboarding new contributors to admin the project on a day-to-day basis w/o inheriting full voting rights that are essentially a conflict resolution mechanism for when other attempts to reach consensus fail. Here's a summary of contributor organizations w/ write across across major repos under the open-policy-agent org: * open-policy-agent/conftest - DataWorkz, Plex, Red Hat,Snyk, Styra * open-policy-agent/frameworks - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/gatekeeper - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/gatekeeper-library - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/opa - Styra * open-policy-agent/opa-envoy-plugin - Styra We're always looking for folks that are interested in making long-term sustained contributions. If you're interested, please get in touch. On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:05 PM Torin Sandall < torin@...> wrote: Hi Maor,
Gatekeeper is not a separate project--it's a part of the OPA project. Microsoft and Google are maintainers of Gatekeeper as well as OPA, meaning all three organizations have the voting rights that go along with maintainership as outlined in our MAINTAINERS.md and GOVERNANCE.md files: https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.mdhttps://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
As far as plans for more organizations go, we have a governance process defined that outlines how new maintainers can be added. It requires a proposal from an existing maintainer and a vote from the other maintainers. That would likely occur after someone has made sustained contributions over a period of time. Note, the governance model allows for individuals to be granted permission to admin repos on GitHub without being granted full voting rights to onboard external efforts within OPA (this is how open-policy-agent/conftest is currently managed.)
-Torin
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:03 PM Maor Goldberg < maor@...> wrote:
Great news and congratulations to the OPA team, great project and a cornerstone for the cloud native enterprise.
Looking at the maintainer status on the project, I wonder if there’s a plan to add more organizations? I believe there’s only one organization (Styra) with maintainer status on the OPA project while Google and Microsoft only maintain the Gatekeeper project (my understanding is that Gatekeeper is a separate project).
I think it will be great to see more than one organization sharing responsibility and leadership for this important project.
Good luck, Maor.
<PastedGraphic-1.tiff>
Folks
The public comment period is now open for 2 weeks, and all SIGs, end users, TOC members, and community members are welcome to comment by replying to this thread.
Brendan Burns
--
--
--
--
|
|
|
No, it’s an organization vote meaning each organization can only vote once.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:20 PM Saad Ali < saadali@...> wrote: Got it. Since, 4/8 maintainers are from a single organization and changes require 2/3 majority, does that mean a single organization could effectively veto any changes?
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:05 PM Torin Sandall < torin@...> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 4:18 PM Saad Ali < saadali@...> wrote: Thank you for the clarification Torin! Hi Liz,
To your comment, the OPA governance model protects against one organization unfairly controlling any part of the project (including the open-policy-agent/opa repository) by allowing any maintainer (from any repository) to call for an update to the model (this is covered by the "Changes in Governance" section).
The governance doc says "All changes in Governance require a 2/3 majority organization vote from all areas of expertise." The model we have in place balances (i) the desire for experts on a repository to make decisions for that repository and (ii) for the OPA contributor community to take action if one or more organizations starts misbehaving. Sustained contributors for each repository make decisions for what goes into that repository, but if those contributors begin making decisions that are not in the interest of the broader community, the OPA governance model allows maintainers from other repositories to step in and take corrective action. The model is based on the premise that maintainers are acting in the best interest of the community, but it recognizes that exceptions can occur and accounts for that. https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md#changes-in-governance
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 3:27 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: I am a big fan of OPA, and in general the project seems to be going well. But it does give me pause to see that open-policy-agent/opa (in particular) is controlled by one organisation
Liz On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 00:42, Maor Goldberg < maor@...> wrote: Thank you for the clarification Torin, appreciate it.
My intention was to highlight the need and to hopefully encourage other organizations to join and help your team. We are participating in the community meetings for a long time now and can only applaud everything that Styra is doing.
Congratulations and good luck!
Hi All,
Maor from apolicy.io sent a follow up email asking about organization responsibilities for different repos. This is all covered in the MAINTAINER.md file: # Maintainers
The following table lists OPA project maintainers and areas of expertise in alphabetical order:
| Name | GitHub | Email | Organization | Repositories/Area of Expertise | Added/Renewed On |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ash Narkar | @ashutosh-narkar | anarkar4387@... | Styra | opa, opa-istio-plugin | 2020-04-14 |
| Craig Tabita | @ctab | ctab@... | Google | gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Max Smythe | @maxsmythe | smythe@... | Google | frameworks/constraints, gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Patrick East | @patrick-east | east.patrick@... | Styra | opa | 2020-04-14 |
| Rita Zhang | @ritazh | rita.z.zhang@... | Microsoft | frameworks/constraints, gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Sertaç Özercan | @sozercan | sozercan@... | Microsoft | gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Tim Hinrichs | @timothyhinrichs | timothy.l.hinrichs@... | Styra | all repositories | 2020-04-14 |
| Torin Sandall | @tsandall | torinsandall@... | Styra | all repositories | 2020-04-14 | We also have non-voting folks w/ write access on certain repos, which is valuable for onboarding new contributors to admin the project on a day-to-day basis w/o inheriting full voting rights that are essentially a conflict resolution mechanism for when other attempts to reach consensus fail. Here's a summary of contributor organizations w/ write across across major repos under the open-policy-agent org: * open-policy-agent/conftest - DataWorkz, Plex, Red Hat,Snyk, Styra * open-policy-agent/frameworks - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/gatekeeper - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/gatekeeper-library - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/opa - Styra * open-policy-agent/opa-envoy-plugin - Styra We're always looking for folks that are interested in making long-term sustained contributions. If you're interested, please get in touch. On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:05 PM Torin Sandall < torin@...> wrote: Hi Maor,
Gatekeeper is not a separate project--it's a part of the OPA project. Microsoft and Google are maintainers of Gatekeeper as well as OPA, meaning all three organizations have the voting rights that go along with maintainership as outlined in our MAINTAINERS.md and GOVERNANCE.md files: https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.mdhttps://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
As far as plans for more organizations go, we have a governance process defined that outlines how new maintainers can be added. It requires a proposal from an existing maintainer and a vote from the other maintainers. That would likely occur after someone has made sustained contributions over a period of time. Note, the governance model allows for individuals to be granted permission to admin repos on GitHub without being granted full voting rights to onboard external efforts within OPA (this is how open-policy-agent/conftest is currently managed.)
-Torin
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:03 PM Maor Goldberg < maor@...> wrote:
Great news and congratulations to the OPA team, great project and a cornerstone for the cloud native enterprise.
Looking at the maintainer status on the project, I wonder if there’s a plan to add more organizations? I believe there’s only one organization (Styra) with maintainer status on the OPA project while Google and Microsoft only maintain the Gatekeeper project (my understanding is that Gatekeeper is a separate project).
I think it will be great to see more than one organization sharing responsibility and leadership for this important project.
Good luck, Maor.
<PastedGraphic-1.tiff>
Folks
The public comment period is now open for 2 weeks, and all SIGs, end users, TOC members, and community members are welcome to comment by replying to this thread.
Brendan Burns
--
--
--
--
|
|
|
Got it. Since, 4/8 maintainers are from a single organization and changes require 2/3 majority, does that mean a single organization could effectively veto any changes?
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:05 PM Torin Sandall < torin@...> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 4:18 PM Saad Ali < saadali@...> wrote: Thank you for the clarification Torin! Hi Liz,
To your comment, the OPA governance model protects against one organization unfairly controlling any part of the project (including the open-policy-agent/opa repository) by allowing any maintainer (from any repository) to call for an update to the model (this is covered by the "Changes in Governance" section).
The governance doc says "All changes in Governance require a 2/3 majority organization vote from all areas of expertise." The model we have in place balances (i) the desire for experts on a repository to make decisions for that repository and (ii) for the OPA contributor community to take action if one or more organizations starts misbehaving. Sustained contributors for each repository make decisions for what goes into that repository, but if those contributors begin making decisions that are not in the interest of the broader community, the OPA governance model allows maintainers from other repositories to step in and take corrective action. The model is based on the premise that maintainers are acting in the best interest of the community, but it recognizes that exceptions can occur and accounts for that. https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md#changes-in-governance
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 3:27 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: I am a big fan of OPA, and in general the project seems to be going well. But it does give me pause to see that open-policy-agent/opa (in particular) is controlled by one organisation
Liz On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 00:42, Maor Goldberg < maor@...> wrote: Thank you for the clarification Torin, appreciate it.
My intention was to highlight the need and to hopefully encourage other organizations to join and help your team. We are participating in the community meetings for a long time now and can only applaud everything that Styra is doing.
Congratulations and good luck!
Hi All,
Maor from apolicy.io sent a follow up email asking about organization responsibilities for different repos. This is all covered in the MAINTAINER.md file: # Maintainers
The following table lists OPA project maintainers and areas of expertise in alphabetical order:
| Name | GitHub | Email | Organization | Repositories/Area of Expertise | Added/Renewed On |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ash Narkar | @ashutosh-narkar | anarkar4387@... | Styra | opa, opa-istio-plugin | 2020-04-14 |
| Craig Tabita | @ctab | ctab@... | Google | gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Max Smythe | @maxsmythe | smythe@... | Google | frameworks/constraints, gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Patrick East | @patrick-east | east.patrick@... | Styra | opa | 2020-04-14 |
| Rita Zhang | @ritazh | rita.z.zhang@... | Microsoft | frameworks/constraints, gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Sertaç Özercan | @sozercan | sozercan@... | Microsoft | gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Tim Hinrichs | @timothyhinrichs | timothy.l.hinrichs@... | Styra | all repositories | 2020-04-14 |
| Torin Sandall | @tsandall | torinsandall@... | Styra | all repositories | 2020-04-14 | We also have non-voting folks w/ write access on certain repos, which is valuable for onboarding new contributors to admin the project on a day-to-day basis w/o inheriting full voting rights that are essentially a conflict resolution mechanism for when other attempts to reach consensus fail. Here's a summary of contributor organizations w/ write across across major repos under the open-policy-agent org: * open-policy-agent/conftest - DataWorkz, Plex, Red Hat,Snyk, Styra * open-policy-agent/frameworks - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/gatekeeper - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/gatekeeper-library - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/opa - Styra * open-policy-agent/opa-envoy-plugin - Styra We're always looking for folks that are interested in making long-term sustained contributions. If you're interested, please get in touch. On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:05 PM Torin Sandall < torin@...> wrote: Hi Maor,
Gatekeeper is not a separate project--it's a part of the OPA project. Microsoft and Google are maintainers of Gatekeeper as well as OPA, meaning all three organizations have the voting rights that go along with maintainership as outlined in our MAINTAINERS.md and GOVERNANCE.md files: https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.mdhttps://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
As far as plans for more organizations go, we have a governance process defined that outlines how new maintainers can be added. It requires a proposal from an existing maintainer and a vote from the other maintainers. That would likely occur after someone has made sustained contributions over a period of time. Note, the governance model allows for individuals to be granted permission to admin repos on GitHub without being granted full voting rights to onboard external efforts within OPA (this is how open-policy-agent/conftest is currently managed.)
-Torin
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:03 PM Maor Goldberg < maor@...> wrote:
Great news and congratulations to the OPA team, great project and a cornerstone for the cloud native enterprise.
Looking at the maintainer status on the project, I wonder if there’s a plan to add more organizations? I believe there’s only one organization (Styra) with maintainer status on the OPA project while Google and Microsoft only maintain the Gatekeeper project (my understanding is that Gatekeeper is a separate project).
I think it will be great to see more than one organization sharing responsibility and leadership for this important project.
Good luck, Maor.
<PastedGraphic-1.tiff>
Folks
The public comment period is now open for 2 weeks, and all SIGs, end users, TOC members, and community members are welcome to comment by replying to this thread.
Brendan Burns
--
--
--
--
|
|
|
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 4:18 PM Saad Ali < saadali@...> wrote: Thank you for the clarification Torin! Hi Liz,
To your comment, the OPA governance model protects against one organization unfairly controlling any part of the project (including the open-policy-agent/opa repository) by allowing any maintainer (from any repository) to call for an update to the model (this is covered by the "Changes in Governance" section).
The governance doc says "All changes in Governance require a 2/3 majority organization vote from all areas of expertise." The model we have in place balances (i) the desire for experts on a repository to make decisions for that repository and (ii) for the OPA contributor community to take action if one or more organizations starts misbehaving. Sustained contributors for each repository make decisions for what goes into that repository, but if those contributors begin making decisions that are not in the interest of the broader community, the OPA governance model allows maintainers from other repositories to step in and take corrective action. The model is based on the premise that maintainers are acting in the best interest of the community, but it recognizes that exceptions can occur and accounts for that. https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md#changes-in-governance
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 3:27 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: I am a big fan of OPA, and in general the project seems to be going well. But it does give me pause to see that open-policy-agent/opa (in particular) is controlled by one organisation
Liz On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 00:42, Maor Goldberg < maor@...> wrote: Thank you for the clarification Torin, appreciate it.
My intention was to highlight the need and to hopefully encourage other organizations to join and help your team. We are participating in the community meetings for a long time now and can only applaud everything that Styra is doing.
Congratulations and good luck!
Hi All,
Maor from apolicy.io sent a follow up email asking about organization responsibilities for different repos. This is all covered in the MAINTAINER.md file: # Maintainers
The following table lists OPA project maintainers and areas of expertise in alphabetical order:
| Name | GitHub | Email | Organization | Repositories/Area of Expertise | Added/Renewed On |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ash Narkar | @ashutosh-narkar | anarkar4387@... | Styra | opa, opa-istio-plugin | 2020-04-14 |
| Craig Tabita | @ctab | ctab@... | Google | gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Max Smythe | @maxsmythe | smythe@... | Google | frameworks/constraints, gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Patrick East | @patrick-east | east.patrick@... | Styra | opa | 2020-04-14 |
| Rita Zhang | @ritazh | rita.z.zhang@... | Microsoft | frameworks/constraints, gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Sertaç Özercan | @sozercan | sozercan@... | Microsoft | gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Tim Hinrichs | @timothyhinrichs | timothy.l.hinrichs@... | Styra | all repositories | 2020-04-14 |
| Torin Sandall | @tsandall | torinsandall@... | Styra | all repositories | 2020-04-14 | We also have non-voting folks w/ write access on certain repos, which is valuable for onboarding new contributors to admin the project on a day-to-day basis w/o inheriting full voting rights that are essentially a conflict resolution mechanism for when other attempts to reach consensus fail. Here's a summary of contributor organizations w/ write across across major repos under the open-policy-agent org: * open-policy-agent/conftest - DataWorkz, Plex, Red Hat,Snyk, Styra * open-policy-agent/frameworks - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/gatekeeper - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/gatekeeper-library - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/opa - Styra * open-policy-agent/opa-envoy-plugin - Styra We're always looking for folks that are interested in making long-term sustained contributions. If you're interested, please get in touch. On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:05 PM Torin Sandall < torin@...> wrote: Hi Maor,
Gatekeeper is not a separate project--it's a part of the OPA project. Microsoft and Google are maintainers of Gatekeeper as well as OPA, meaning all three organizations have the voting rights that go along with maintainership as outlined in our MAINTAINERS.md and GOVERNANCE.md files: https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.mdhttps://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
As far as plans for more organizations go, we have a governance process defined that outlines how new maintainers can be added. It requires a proposal from an existing maintainer and a vote from the other maintainers. That would likely occur after someone has made sustained contributions over a period of time. Note, the governance model allows for individuals to be granted permission to admin repos on GitHub without being granted full voting rights to onboard external efforts within OPA (this is how open-policy-agent/conftest is currently managed.)
-Torin
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:03 PM Maor Goldberg < maor@...> wrote:
Great news and congratulations to the OPA team, great project and a cornerstone for the cloud native enterprise.
Looking at the maintainer status on the project, I wonder if there’s a plan to add more organizations? I believe there’s only one organization (Styra) with maintainer status on the OPA project while Google and Microsoft only maintain the Gatekeeper project (my understanding is that Gatekeeper is a separate project).
I think it will be great to see more than one organization sharing responsibility and leadership for this important project.
Good luck, Maor.
<PastedGraphic-1.tiff>
Folks
The public comment period is now open for 2 weeks, and all SIGs, end users, TOC members, and community members are welcome to comment by replying to this thread.
Brendan Burns
--
--
--
|
|
|
Thank you for the clarification Torin! Hi Liz,
To your comment, the OPA governance model protects against one organization unfairly controlling any part of the project (including the open-policy-agent/opa repository) by allowing any maintainer (from any repository) to call for an update to the model (this is covered by the "Changes in Governance" section).
The governance doc says "All changes in Governance require a 2/3 majority organization vote from all areas of expertise." The model we have in place balances (i) the desire for experts on a repository to make decisions for that repository and (ii) for the OPA contributor community to take action if one or more organizations starts misbehaving. Sustained contributors for each repository make decisions for what goes into that repository, but if those contributors begin making decisions that are not in the interest of the broader community, the OPA governance model allows maintainers from other repositories to step in and take corrective action. The model is based on the premise that maintainers are acting in the best interest of the community, but it recognizes that exceptions can occur and accounts for that. https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md#changes-in-governance
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 3:27 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: I am a big fan of OPA, and in general the project seems to be going well. But it does give me pause to see that open-policy-agent/opa (in particular) is controlled by one organisation
Liz On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 00:42, Maor Goldberg < maor@...> wrote: Thank you for the clarification Torin, appreciate it.
My intention was to highlight the need and to hopefully encourage other organizations to join and help your team. We are participating in the community meetings for a long time now and can only applaud everything that Styra is doing.
Congratulations and good luck!
Hi All,
Maor from apolicy.io sent a follow up email asking about organization responsibilities for different repos. This is all covered in the MAINTAINER.md file: # Maintainers
The following table lists OPA project maintainers and areas of expertise in alphabetical order:
| Name | GitHub | Email | Organization | Repositories/Area of Expertise | Added/Renewed On |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ash Narkar | @ashutosh-narkar | anarkar4387@... | Styra | opa, opa-istio-plugin | 2020-04-14 |
| Craig Tabita | @ctab | ctab@... | Google | gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Max Smythe | @maxsmythe | smythe@... | Google | frameworks/constraints, gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Patrick East | @patrick-east | east.patrick@... | Styra | opa | 2020-04-14 |
| Rita Zhang | @ritazh | rita.z.zhang@... | Microsoft | frameworks/constraints, gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Sertaç Özercan | @sozercan | sozercan@... | Microsoft | gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Tim Hinrichs | @timothyhinrichs | timothy.l.hinrichs@... | Styra | all repositories | 2020-04-14 |
| Torin Sandall | @tsandall | torinsandall@... | Styra | all repositories | 2020-04-14 | We also have non-voting folks w/ write access on certain repos, which is valuable for onboarding new contributors to admin the project on a day-to-day basis w/o inheriting full voting rights that are essentially a conflict resolution mechanism for when other attempts to reach consensus fail. Here's a summary of contributor organizations w/ write across across major repos under the open-policy-agent org: * open-policy-agent/conftest - DataWorkz, Plex, Red Hat,Snyk, Styra * open-policy-agent/frameworks - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/gatekeeper - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/gatekeeper-library - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/opa - Styra * open-policy-agent/opa-envoy-plugin - Styra We're always looking for folks that are interested in making long-term sustained contributions. If you're interested, please get in touch. On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:05 PM Torin Sandall < torin@...> wrote: Hi Maor,
Gatekeeper is not a separate project--it's a part of the OPA project. Microsoft and Google are maintainers of Gatekeeper as well as OPA, meaning all three organizations have the voting rights that go along with maintainership as outlined in our MAINTAINERS.md and GOVERNANCE.md files: https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.mdhttps://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
As far as plans for more organizations go, we have a governance process defined that outlines how new maintainers can be added. It requires a proposal from an existing maintainer and a vote from the other maintainers. That would likely occur after someone has made sustained contributions over a period of time. Note, the governance model allows for individuals to be granted permission to admin repos on GitHub without being granted full voting rights to onboard external efforts within OPA (this is how open-policy-agent/conftest is currently managed.)
-Torin
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:03 PM Maor Goldberg < maor@...> wrote:
Great news and congratulations to the OPA team, great project and a cornerstone for the cloud native enterprise.
Looking at the maintainer status on the project, I wonder if there’s a plan to add more organizations? I believe there’s only one organization (Styra) with maintainer status on the OPA project while Google and Microsoft only maintain the Gatekeeper project (my understanding is that Gatekeeper is a separate project).
I think it will be great to see more than one organization sharing responsibility and leadership for this important project.
Good luck, Maor.
<PastedGraphic-1.tiff>
Folks
The public comment period is now open for 2 weeks, and all SIGs, end users, TOC members, and community members are welcome to comment by replying to this thread.
Brendan Burns
--
--
--
|
|
|
Hi Liz, To your comment, the OPA governance model protects against one organization unfairly controlling any part of the project (including the open-policy-agent/opa repository) by allowing any maintainer (from any repository) to call for an update to the model (this is covered by the "Changes in Governance" section). The model we have in place balances (i) the desire for experts on a repository to make decisions for that repository and (ii) for the OPA contributor community to take action if one or more organizations starts misbehaving. Sustained contributors for each repository make decisions for what goes into that repository, but if those contributors begin making decisions that are not in the interest of the broader community, the OPA governance model allows maintainers from other repositories to step in and take corrective action. The model is based on the premise that maintainers are acting in the best interest of the community, but it recognizes that exceptions can occur and accounts for that. https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md#changes-in-governance
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 3:27 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: I am a big fan of OPA, and in general the project seems to be going well. But it does give me pause to see that open-policy-agent/opa (in particular) is controlled by one organisation
Liz On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 00:42, Maor Goldberg < maor@...> wrote: Thank you for the clarification Torin, appreciate it.
My intention was to highlight the need and to hopefully encourage other organizations to join and help your team. We are participating in the community meetings for a long time now and can only applaud everything that Styra is doing.
Congratulations and good luck!
Hi All,
Maor from apolicy.io sent a follow up email asking about organization responsibilities for different repos. This is all covered in the MAINTAINER.md file: # Maintainers
The following table lists OPA project maintainers and areas of expertise in alphabetical order:
| Name | GitHub | Email | Organization | Repositories/Area of Expertise | Added/Renewed On |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ash Narkar | @ashutosh-narkar | anarkar4387@... | Styra | opa, opa-istio-plugin | 2020-04-14 |
| Craig Tabita | @ctab | ctab@... | Google | gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Max Smythe | @maxsmythe | smythe@... | Google | frameworks/constraints, gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Patrick East | @patrick-east | east.patrick@... | Styra | opa | 2020-04-14 |
| Rita Zhang | @ritazh | rita.z.zhang@... | Microsoft | frameworks/constraints, gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Sertaç Özercan | @sozercan | sozercan@... | Microsoft | gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Tim Hinrichs | @timothyhinrichs | timothy.l.hinrichs@... | Styra | all repositories | 2020-04-14 |
| Torin Sandall | @tsandall | torinsandall@... | Styra | all repositories | 2020-04-14 | We also have non-voting folks w/ write access on certain repos, which is valuable for onboarding new contributors to admin the project on a day-to-day basis w/o inheriting full voting rights that are essentially a conflict resolution mechanism for when other attempts to reach consensus fail. Here's a summary of contributor organizations w/ write across across major repos under the open-policy-agent org: * open-policy-agent/conftest - DataWorkz, Plex, Red Hat,Snyk, Styra * open-policy-agent/frameworks - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/gatekeeper - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/gatekeeper-library - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/opa - Styra * open-policy-agent/opa-envoy-plugin - Styra We're always looking for folks that are interested in making long-term sustained contributions. If you're interested, please get in touch. On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:05 PM Torin Sandall < torin@...> wrote: Hi Maor,
Gatekeeper is not a separate project--it's a part of the OPA project. Microsoft and Google are maintainers of Gatekeeper as well as OPA, meaning all three organizations have the voting rights that go along with maintainership as outlined in our MAINTAINERS.md and GOVERNANCE.md files: https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.mdhttps://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
As far as plans for more organizations go, we have a governance process defined that outlines how new maintainers can be added. It requires a proposal from an existing maintainer and a vote from the other maintainers. That would likely occur after someone has made sustained contributions over a period of time. Note, the governance model allows for individuals to be granted permission to admin repos on GitHub without being granted full voting rights to onboard external efforts within OPA (this is how open-policy-agent/conftest is currently managed.)
-Torin
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:03 PM Maor Goldberg < maor@...> wrote:
Great news and congratulations to the OPA team, great project and a cornerstone for the cloud native enterprise.
Looking at the maintainer status on the project, I wonder if there’s a plan to add more organizations? I believe there’s only one organization (Styra) with maintainer status on the OPA project while Google and Microsoft only maintain the Gatekeeper project (my understanding is that Gatekeeper is a separate project).
I think it will be great to see more than one organization sharing responsibility and leadership for this important project.
Good luck, Maor.
<PastedGraphic-1.tiff>
Folks
The public comment period is now open for 2 weeks, and all SIGs, end users, TOC members, and community members are welcome to comment by replying to this thread.
Brendan Burns
--
--
|
|
|
I am a big fan of OPA, and in general the project seems to be going well. But it does give me pause to see that open-policy-agent/opa (in particular) is controlled by one organisation
Liz
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 00:42, Maor Goldberg < maor@...> wrote: Thank you for the clarification Torin, appreciate it.
My intention was to highlight the need and to hopefully encourage other organizations to join and help your team. We are participating in the community meetings for a long time now and can only applaud everything that Styra is doing.
Congratulations and good luck!
Hi All,
Maor from apolicy.io sent a follow up email asking about organization responsibilities for different repos. This is all covered in the MAINTAINER.md file: # Maintainers
The following table lists OPA project maintainers and areas of expertise in alphabetical order:
| Name | GitHub | Email | Organization | Repositories/Area of Expertise | Added/Renewed On |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ash Narkar | @ashutosh-narkar | anarkar4387@... | Styra | opa, opa-istio-plugin | 2020-04-14 |
| Craig Tabita | @ctab | ctab@... | Google | gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Max Smythe | @maxsmythe | smythe@... | Google | frameworks/constraints, gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Patrick East | @patrick-east | east.patrick@... | Styra | opa | 2020-04-14 |
| Rita Zhang | @ritazh | rita.z.zhang@... | Microsoft | frameworks/constraints, gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Sertaç Özercan | @sozercan | sozercan@... | Microsoft | gatekeeper, gatekeeper-library | 2020-04-14 |
| Tim Hinrichs | @timothyhinrichs | timothy.l.hinrichs@... | Styra | all repositories | 2020-04-14 |
| Torin Sandall | @tsandall | torinsandall@... | Styra | all repositories | 2020-04-14 | We also have non-voting folks w/ write access on certain repos, which is valuable for onboarding new contributors to admin the project on a day-to-day basis w/o inheriting full voting rights that are essentially a conflict resolution mechanism for when other attempts to reach consensus fail. Here's a summary of contributor organizations w/ write across across major repos under the open-policy-agent org: * open-policy-agent/conftest - DataWorkz, Plex, Red Hat,Snyk, Styra * open-policy-agent/frameworks - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/gatekeeper - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/gatekeeper-library - Google, Microsoft, Styra * open-policy-agent/opa - Styra * open-policy-agent/opa-envoy-plugin - Styra We're always looking for folks that are interested in making long-term sustained contributions. If you're interested, please get in touch. On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:05 PM Torin Sandall < torin@...> wrote: Hi Maor,
Gatekeeper is not a separate project--it's a part of the OPA project. Microsoft and Google are maintainers of Gatekeeper as well as OPA, meaning all three organizations have the voting rights that go along with maintainership as outlined in our MAINTAINERS.md and GOVERNANCE.md files: https://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.mdhttps://github.com/open-policy-agent/opa/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
As far as plans for more organizations go, we have a governance process defined that outlines how new maintainers can be added. It requires a proposal from an existing maintainer and a vote from the other maintainers. That would likely occur after someone has made sustained contributions over a period of time. Note, the governance model allows for individuals to be granted permission to admin repos on GitHub without being granted full voting rights to onboard external efforts within OPA (this is how open-policy-agent/conftest is currently managed.)
-Torin
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:03 PM Maor Goldberg < maor@...> wrote:
Great news and congratulations to the OPA team, great project and a cornerstone for the cloud native enterprise.
Looking at the maintainer status on the project, I wonder if there’s a plan to add more organizations? I believe there’s only one organization (Styra) with maintainer status on the OPA project while Google and Microsoft only maintain the Gatekeeper project (my understanding is that Gatekeeper is a separate project).
I think it will be great to see more than one organization sharing responsibility and leadership for this important project.
Good luck, Maor.
<PastedGraphic-1.tiff>
Folks
The public comment period is now open for 2 weeks, and all SIGs, end users, TOC members, and community members are welcome to comment by replying to this thread.
Brendan Burns
--
--
|
|
|
