|
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-sig-observability] SIG Observability has a TOC Liaison!
I believe we can call a vote on the public mailing list by sending a mail to the main CNCF list.
I will do that now.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: Bartłomiej Płotka <bwplotka@...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 6:51 AM
To: cncf-sig-observability@... <cncf-sig-observability@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>; Brendan Burns <bburns@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-sig-observability] SIG Observability has a TOC Liaison!
Awesome! What would be the next steps for us? (: Vote means, vote on next CNCF TOC meeting?
Kind Regards,
Bartek
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 05:56, Matt Young < myoung@...> wrote:
Hello!
We're happy to announce that Brendan Burns has agreed to be the TOC Liaison for SIG Observability. That means...
The SIG Observability Charter is now ready for a vote!
Matt
|
|
|
Re: [Vote] Argo Project Proposal
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 7:20 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote: The Argo project is being proposed as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Michelle Noorali from the TOC: https://github.com/argoproj/argoPlease vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full project proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/299Remember 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: [cncf-sig-observability] SIG Observability has a TOC Liaison!
I think "next" is up to TOC's discretion, but "soon" sounds realistic.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
|
|
|
Re: Helm Graduation public comment period
Reminding people that the public comment about Helm graduation is open, please add any comments about the Helm graduation here.
Justin
Helm has requested to graduate.
The public comment period is now open, and will remain open for two weeks from today. Please reply in this thread.
Justin Cormack
|
|
|
SIG Observability has a TOC Liaison!
Matt Young
Hello!
We're happy to announce that Brendan Burns has agreed to be the TOC Liaison for SIG Observability. That means...
The SIG Observability Charter is now ready for a vote!
Matt
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Dragonfly Incubation Vote
Michelle Noorali <michelle.noorali@...>
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Mar 31, 2020, at 12:54 PM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
+1 binding
If Dragonfly does indeed move to incubation, it would be great to have SIG Security do an assessment and give recommendations to the project (the related issue is currently marked inactive)
+1 nb +1 binding
On Mar 13, 2020, at 2:47 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote: -- Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Dragonfly Incubation Vote
+1 binding
If Dragonfly does indeed move to incubation, it would be great to have SIG Security do an assessment and give recommendations to the project (the related issue is currently marked inactive)
+1 nb +1 binding
On Mar 13, 2020, at 2:47 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote: -- Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...
|
|
|
Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting
Chris Aniszczyk
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Another option would be sharing our budget in the same way we share our source code?
We need to foster a healthy community here. We are all caught off guard by this - if we can share and receive forgiveness now is the time.
Just let us know what you are doing? We all have a lot of money riding on this and hiding is extremely cowardly. Share the numbers. Pretty please, with sugar on top.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:43 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: Kris, I will bring up the issue of potentially offering abridged minutes or opening a part of the meeting:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:22 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
An idea might be to keep the option of having a few topics stay private. The TOC found this much easier to share thoughts candidly at times and hence form a collective view quickly. At the same time almost all matters benefit from being publicly aired.
Yeah I see that you documented hiding the GB meetings - but can we open this up? This is an open-source foundation after all - and given the state of the world right now it might be wise to encourage sharing instead of hiding. I am wondering what everyone else's thoughts on this are? Can we share the GB slides right now?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:08 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:00 AM Kris Nova < kris.nova@...> wrote: Any way we can share them? I would be interested in seeing what happens there.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:52 AM Dan Kohn < dan@...> wrote: Apologies, those GB slides aren't public, but Liz's TOC slides are:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kris Nova < kris.nova@...> wrote: Hi,
I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison < ginger@...> wrote: Thanks, Alexis.
-g
Ginger Collison | NATS Community & Ecosystem
Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers. I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.
Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV). We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'. They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation. Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.
Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors. Long may this continue.
More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom. This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.
But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals. That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs. We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.
Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation. For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project. Is it then risk-free? NO. So what are we trying to
achieve?
I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate. I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.
alexis
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting
Chris Aniszczyk
Kris, I will bring up the issue of potentially offering abridged minutes or opening a part of the meeting:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:22 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
An idea might be to keep the option of having a few topics stay private. The TOC found this much easier to share thoughts candidly at times and hence form a collective view quickly. At the same time almost all matters benefit from being publicly aired.
Yeah I see that you documented hiding the GB meetings - but can we open this up? This is an open-source foundation after all - and given the state of the world right now it might be wise to encourage sharing instead of hiding. I am wondering what everyone else's thoughts on this are? Can we share the GB slides right now?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:08 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:00 AM Kris Nova < kris.nova@...> wrote: Any way we can share them? I would be interested in seeing what happens there.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:52 AM Dan Kohn < dan@...> wrote: Apologies, those GB slides aren't public, but Liz's TOC slides are:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kris Nova < kris.nova@...> wrote: Hi,
I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison < ginger@...> wrote: Thanks, Alexis.
-g
Ginger Collison | NATS Community & Ecosystem
Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers. I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.
Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV). We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'. They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation. Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.
Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors. Long may this continue.
More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom. This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.
But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals. That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs. We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.
Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation. For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project. Is it then risk-free? NO. So what are we trying to
achieve?
I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate. I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.
alexis
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting
Kris Nova <kris.nova@...>
Yeah I see that you documented hiding the GB meetings - but can we open this up? This is an open-source foundation after all - and given the state of the world right now it might be wise to encourage sharing instead of hiding. I am wondering what everyone else's thoughts on this are? Can we share the GB slides right now?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:08 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:00 AM Kris Nova < kris.nova@...> wrote: Any way we can share them? I would be interested in seeing what happens there.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:52 AM Dan Kohn < dan@...> wrote: Apologies, those GB slides aren't public, but Liz's TOC slides are:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kris Nova < kris.nova@...> wrote: Hi,
I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison < ginger@...> wrote: Thanks, Alexis.
-g
Ginger Collison | NATS Community & Ecosystem
Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers. I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.
Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV). We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'. They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation. Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.
Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors. Long may this continue.
More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom. This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.
But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals. That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs. We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.
Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation. For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project. Is it then risk-free? NO. So what are we trying to
achieve?
I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate. I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.
alexis
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
-- Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
|
|
|
Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting
An idea might be to keep the option of having a few topics stay private. The TOC found this much easier to share thoughts candidly at times and hence form a collective view quickly. At the same time almost all matters benefit from being publicly aired.
Yeah I see that you documented hiding the GB meetings - but can we open this up? This is an open-source foundation after all - and given the state of the world right now it might be wise to encourage sharing instead of hiding. I am wondering what everyone else's thoughts on this are? Can we share the GB slides right now?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:08 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:00 AM Kris Nova < kris.nova@...> wrote: Any way we can share them? I would be interested in seeing what happens there.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:52 AM Dan Kohn < dan@...> wrote: Apologies, those GB slides aren't public, but Liz's TOC slides are:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kris Nova < kris.nova@...> wrote: Hi,
I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison < ginger@...> wrote: Thanks, Alexis.
-g
Ginger Collison | NATS Community & Ecosystem
Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers. I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.
Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV). We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'. They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation. Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.
Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors. Long may this continue.
More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom. This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.
But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals. That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs. We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.
Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation. For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project. Is it then risk-free? NO. So what are we trying to
achieve?
I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate. I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.
alexis
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
|
|
|
Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting
Chris Aniszczyk
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:00 AM Kris Nova < kris.nova@...> wrote: Any way we can share them? I would be interested in seeing what happens there.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:52 AM Dan Kohn < dan@...> wrote: Apologies, those GB slides aren't public, but Liz's TOC slides are:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kris Nova < kris.nova@...> wrote: Hi,
I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison < ginger@...> wrote: Thanks, Alexis.
-g
Ginger Collison | NATS Community & Ecosystem
Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers. I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.
Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV). We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'. They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation. Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.
Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors. Long may this continue.
More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom. This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.
But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals. That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs. We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.
Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation. For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project. Is it then risk-free? NO. So what are we trying to
achieve?
I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate. I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.
alexis
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting
Kris Nova <kris.nova@...>
Any way we can share them? I would be interested in seeing what happens there.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:52 AM Dan Kohn < dan@...> wrote: Apologies, those GB slides aren't public, but Liz's TOC slides are:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kris Nova < kris.nova@...> wrote: Hi,
I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison < ginger@...> wrote: Thanks, Alexis.
-g
Ginger Collison | NATS Community & Ecosystem
Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers. I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.
Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV). We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'. They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation. Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.
Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors. Long may this continue.
More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom. This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.
But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals. That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs. We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.
Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation. For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project. Is it then risk-free? NO. So what are we trying to
achieve?
I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate. I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.
alexis
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
-- Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
|
|
|
Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting
Kris Nova <kris.nova@...>
Hi,
I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison < ginger@...> wrote: Thanks, Alexis.
-g
Ginger Collison | NATS Community & Ecosystem
Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers. I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.
Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV). We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'. They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation. Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.
Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors. Long may this continue.
More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom. This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.
But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals. That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs. We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.
Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation. For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project. Is it then risk-free? NO. So what are we trying to
achieve?
I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate. I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.
alexis
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>
-- Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
|
|
|
Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting
Apologies, those GB slides aren't public, but Liz's TOC slides are:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kris Nova < kris.nova@...> wrote: Hi,
I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison < ginger@...> wrote: Thanks, Alexis.
-g
Ginger Collison | NATS Community & Ecosystem
Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers. I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.
Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV). We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'. They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation. Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.
Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors. Long may this continue.
More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom. This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.
But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals. That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs. We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.
Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation. For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project. Is it then risk-free? NO. So what are we trying to
achieve?
I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate. I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.
alexis
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>
--
Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105
|
|
|
Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting
Thanks, Alexis.
-g
Ginger Collison | NATS Community & Ecosystem
Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers. I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.
Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV). We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'. They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation. Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.
Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors. Long may this continue.
More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom. This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.
But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals. That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs. We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.
Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation. For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project. Is it then risk-free? NO. So what are we trying to
achieve?
I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate. I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.
alexis
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>
|
|
|
Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers. I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.
Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV). We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'. They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation. Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.
Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors. Long may this continue.
More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom. This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.
But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals. That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs. We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.
Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation. For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project. Is it then risk-free? NO. So what are we trying to
achieve?
I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate. I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.
alexis
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
|
|
|
Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Hope everyone is staying well,
Liz
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
Hope everyone is staying well,
Liz
--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
|
|
|
Re: [Vote] Argo Project Proposal
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020, 18:00 Liz Rice, < liz@...> wrote: +1 binding
+1 bindingOn Mar 19, 2020, at 7:19 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote:
The Argo project is being proposed as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Michelle Noorali from the TOC: https://github.com/argoproj/argoPlease vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full project proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/299Remember 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@...
|
|
|
