Date   

Re: sig contributor strategy charter ready for vote

Stephen Augustus
 

+1 NB!!
Looking forward to this!! :)

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 21:55 Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io <parispittman=google.com@...> wrote:
Hi TOC:

We are ready for a vote. I know many of you gave +1s when we initially proposed this with the last iteration of TOC, but we are now ready for the final vote with the new crew. 


Matt Klein as TOC Liaison (others?)

thank you!
contributor strategy crowd





--

Paris Pittman

Kubernetes Community

Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud

345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105



sig contributor strategy charter ready for vote

Paris Pittman <parispittman@...>
 

Hi TOC:

We are ready for a vote. I know many of you gave +1s when we initially proposed this with the last iteration of TOC, but we are now ready for the final vote with the new crew. 


Matt Klein as TOC Liaison (others?)

thank you!
contributor strategy crowd





--

Paris Pittman

Kubernetes Community

Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud

345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105



Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] Point of process

Matt Farina
 

All of these discussion got me thinking about a few things. I figured I'd share.

First, I agree this should have been done in the open from the start. While I didn't run the show and I did ask for this to be open sooner I spent quite a period of time not paying attention and didn't push the issue until this week when it was opened. I'm sorry I didn't do that sooner. I think this is a wonderful lesson learned but shouldn't be the central point moving forward because...

I was reading the foundation charter again and was reminded that the CNCF is there to foster and support projects. For those of us who work on projects this is a benefit for both the projects and their users. The focus, I would think, should be here.

With that in mind, I was asked some questions about the CNCF Hub today and figured I'd share what my 2 cents were. They may not carry much but I did take some time to think them out.

First, the idea of the Hub was for CNCF projects. These aren't vendor controlled open source projects. They are CNCF projects in a vendor neutral home.

Second, I saw this in the support and foster areas as easy discovery and installation of artifacts which is extremely beneficial for uptake. While this has benefited Helm it would be an amazing benefit for other current CNCF projects with artifacts. It would help them foster growth which is a criteria for graduation.

Third, the design for the Hub was intentionally not to be a host for the artifacts. Current vendors do a lot of artifact hosting and this doesn't do that. Instead, it's a distributed search system that lists what's public in those systems. The UX benefit helps the projects distributed artifacts be more easily accessible which is important for users of the projects and the projects themselves.

All of this is under the guise of fostering and supporting projects which is a task of the CNCF.

I'm also reminded of the many services the CNCF provides projects. Devstats, conference hosting, and other elements. In my mind I see something like a Hub living alongside those in a similar manner. Though, I imagine this point is up for debate.

As this has impact on existing CNCF projects - Helm, Falco, and OPA come to mind - I would like to see a lively conversation among the existing projects who would be impacted. Do they want a single hub? Do they want a shared codebase that can be used for individual hubs? What's a better cloud native consumer experience for people to find artifacts?

I know this whole conversation impacts the operator framework which is unfortunate. But, I would appreciate if the topic of the conversation in this coming meeting is in the positive direction around supporting the projects.

Thanks for listening,
Matt Farina



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Brendan Burns via Lists.Cncf.Io wrote:
100% agree with encouraging diversity and not being king makers.

However, I also think that applies within projects, not just between projects.

I want to make sure that we adopt tools that encourage and enable a diversity of people hosting artifacts.

As a concrete example, I would be uncomfortable accepting something like npm (not that they're talking to us) because it is pretty tightly locked to a single web site for discovery.

--brendan





From: Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 11:22 AM
To: Brendan Burns <bburns@...>
Cc: alexis richardson <alexis@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] Point of process
 
To add to your thought, Brendan...I believe we should be thorough with our technical due diligence and understand what differentiates one project from another in the same space. And the CNCF, like any other company/organization is free to choose the best technology to address their problem space. 
However, I firmly believe that our job (TOC and TOC contributors) are to enable choices and diversity within the landscape. We don't want every project that goes into the cncf to operate exactly the same. There are advantages and disadvantages of both. It's not a one-size-fits-all. 
Ensuring we aren't being King Makers should be a fundamental value we hold in making these decisions.




On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 11:40 AM Brendan Burns <bburns@...> wrote:
I'm in full agreement regarding transparency in the CNCF.

However, I think the discussion about OperatorHub has more to do with it's intersection with Helm and the Helm Hub as well as whether Operator Hub is built to enable alternate/federated hubs in the way that Helm is.

(there's lots of details on the other threads about OperatorHub)

So I don't think it is accurate to characterize the delay as being due to CNCF Hub, but rather the ToC wrangling with what makes sense around these kinds of artifact discovery mechanisms.

In the interests of not forking the discussion, if people want to discuss OperatorHub technical design let's use the other threads for that.

--brendan





From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Erin Boyd via Lists.Cncf.Io <eboyd=redhat.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 7:39 AM
To: alexis richardson <alexis@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] Point of process
 
Amen!

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 4:26 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I believe the issue here is simple.  The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret.  End of story.  We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what.  But please do
it in the OPEN.  The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:
>>
>> First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
>
>
> Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.
>
> Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.
>
>> I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.
>
>
> If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
>>
>> To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
>
> I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
>>
>> Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).
>
>
> Thank you for surfacing in a PR.
>
> The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.
>
>> Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.
>
>
> I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.
>
> And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.
>
> It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.
>
>
>>
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>> On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
>>
>> During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
>> the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
>> vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
>> submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
>>
>> The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
>> mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
>> discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
>> project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
>> significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
>> released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
>> fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
>> name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
>> community and CNCF support.
>>
>> As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
>> accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
>> in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.
>>
>> Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
>> secretive guidelines.
>>
>> I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
>> treated equally and fairly.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>





Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] Point of process

Brendan Burns
 

100% agree with encouraging diversity and not being king makers.

However, I also think that applies within projects, not just between projects.

I want to make sure that we adopt tools that encourage and enable a diversity of people hosting artifacts.

As a concrete example, I would be uncomfortable accepting something like npm (not that they're talking to us) because it is pretty tightly locked to a single web site for discovery.

--brendan



From: Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 11:22 AM
To: Brendan Burns <bburns@...>
Cc: alexis richardson <alexis@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] Point of process
 
To add to your thought, Brendan...I believe we should be thorough with our technical due diligence and understand what differentiates one project from another in the same space. And the CNCF, like any other company/organization is free to choose the best technology to address their problem space. 
However, I firmly believe that our job (TOC and TOC contributors) are to enable choices and diversity within the landscape. We don't want every project that goes into the cncf to operate exactly the same. There are advantages and disadvantages of both. It's not a one-size-fits-all. 
Ensuring we aren't being King Makers should be a fundamental value we hold in making these decisions.



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 11:40 AM Brendan Burns <bburns@...> wrote:
I'm in full agreement regarding transparency in the CNCF.

However, I think the discussion about OperatorHub has more to do with it's intersection with Helm and the Helm Hub as well as whether Operator Hub is built to enable alternate/federated hubs in the way that Helm is.

(there's lots of details on the other threads about OperatorHub)

So I don't think it is accurate to characterize the delay as being due to CNCF Hub, but rather the ToC wrangling with what makes sense around these kinds of artifact discovery mechanisms.

In the interests of not forking the discussion, if people want to discuss OperatorHub technical design let's use the other threads for that.

--brendan



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Erin Boyd via Lists.Cncf.Io <eboyd=redhat.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 7:39 AM
To: alexis richardson <alexis@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] Point of process
 
Amen!

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 4:26 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I believe the issue here is simple.  The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret.  End of story.  We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what.  But please do
it in the OPEN.  The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:
>>
>> First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
>
>
> Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.
>
> Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.
>
>> I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.
>
>
> If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
>>
>> To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
>
> I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
>>
>> Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).
>
>
> Thank you for surfacing in a PR.
>
> The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.
>
>> Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.
>
>
> I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.
>
> And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.
>
> It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.
>
>
>>
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>> On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
>>
>> During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
>> the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
>> vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
>> submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
>> here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717
>>
>> The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
>> mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
>> discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
>> project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
>> significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
>> released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
>> fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
>> name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
>> community and CNCF support.
>>
>> As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
>> accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
>> in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.
>>
>> Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
>> secretive guidelines.
>>
>> I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
>> treated equally and fairly.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>




Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] Point of process

Erin Boyd
 

To add to your thought, Brendan...I believe we should be thorough with our technical due diligence and understand what differentiates one project from another in the same space. And the CNCF, like any other company/organization is free to choose the best technology to address their problem space. 
However, I firmly believe that our job (TOC and TOC contributors) are to enable choices and diversity within the landscape. We don't want every project that goes into the cncf to operate exactly the same. There are advantages and disadvantages of both. It's not a one-size-fits-all. 
Ensuring we aren't being King Makers should be a fundamental value we hold in making these decisions.



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 11:40 AM Brendan Burns <bburns@...> wrote:
I'm in full agreement regarding transparency in the CNCF.

However, I think the discussion about OperatorHub has more to do with it's intersection with Helm and the Helm Hub as well as whether Operator Hub is built to enable alternate/federated hubs in the way that Helm is.

(there's lots of details on the other threads about OperatorHub)

So I don't think it is accurate to characterize the delay as being due to CNCF Hub, but rather the ToC wrangling with what makes sense around these kinds of artifact discovery mechanisms.

In the interests of not forking the discussion, if people want to discuss OperatorHub technical design let's use the other threads for that.

--brendan



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Erin Boyd via Lists.Cncf.Io <eboyd=redhat.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 7:39 AM
To: alexis richardson <alexis@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] Point of process
 
Amen!

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 4:26 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I believe the issue here is simple.  The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret.  End of story.  We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what.  But please do
it in the OPEN.  The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:
>>
>> First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
>
>
> Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.
>
> Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.
>
>> I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.
>
>
> If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
>>
>> To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
>
> I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
>>
>> Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).
>
>
> Thank you for surfacing in a PR.
>
> The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.
>
>> Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.
>
>
> I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.
>
> And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.
>
> It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.
>
>
>>
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>> On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
>>
>> During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
>> the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
>> vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
>> submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
>> here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717
>>
>> The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
>> mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
>> discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
>> project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
>> significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
>> released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
>> fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
>> name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
>> community and CNCF support.
>>
>> As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
>> accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
>> in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.
>>
>> Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
>> secretive guidelines.
>>
>> I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
>> treated equally and fairly.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>




Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] Point of process

Brendan Burns
 

I'm in full agreement regarding transparency in the CNCF.

However, I think the discussion about OperatorHub has more to do with it's intersection with Helm and the Helm Hub as well as whether Operator Hub is built to enable alternate/federated hubs in the way that Helm is.

(there's lots of details on the other threads about OperatorHub)

So I don't think it is accurate to characterize the delay as being due to CNCF Hub, but rather the ToC wrangling with what makes sense around these kinds of artifact discovery mechanisms.

In the interests of not forking the discussion, if people want to discuss OperatorHub technical design let's use the other threads for that.

--brendan



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Erin Boyd via Lists.Cncf.Io <eboyd=redhat.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 7:39 AM
To: alexis richardson <alexis@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] Point of process
 
Amen!

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 4:26 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I believe the issue here is simple.  The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret.  End of story.  We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what.  But please do
it in the OPEN.  The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:
>>
>> First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
>
>
> Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.
>
> Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.
>
>> I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.
>
>
> If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
>>
>> To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
>
> I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
>>
>> Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).
>
>
> Thank you for surfacing in a PR.
>
> The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.
>
>> Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.
>
>
> I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.
>
> And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.
>
> It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.
>
>
>>
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>> On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
>>
>> During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
>> the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
>> vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
>> submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
>> here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717
>>
>> The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
>> mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
>> discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
>> project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
>> significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
>> released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
>> fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
>> name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
>> community and CNCF support.
>>
>> As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
>> accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
>> in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.
>>
>> Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
>> secretive guidelines.
>>
>> I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
>> treated equally and fairly.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>




Re: Point of process

Alex Chircop
 


While I recognize the importance and the impact of an initiative like hub.cncf.io to the cloud native mission, I also agree that this should be discussed and introduced in a more open manner.

The initiative is important for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:
1) A "package manager" that provides a simple, central way to source software for a platform is key to critical mass adoption of a platform - historically just think of the impact that package management had on the adoption of the various Linux distributions.
2) Software and package management is also a key step to ISV support for a platform - and that too is key to the acceptance and adoption of the platform

That said, it is critical to get this right, so openness, where we can benefit from some of the already mature initiatives in the community (even if they are competing) is the right thing:
1) When it comes to installing software, end-users want something that "just works" - so making it easy for software devs and orgs that release software to adopt the platform, test and manage distributions
2) Software deployments often have dependencies which may/should be managed through the overall solution - it does not make for a good user experience if different components of a package have different ways of sourcing or deploying - this is why it is key to get this right, and get systems to work together - even if this means that we may need to be opinionated, and even if it means that this requires resources to properly curate the repository
3) Cloud Native software deployment often have additional complexity or considerations during "day 2" operations - such as dealing with upgrades (and the dependency paths) and scaling etc ... - which is why it is odd (based on this email thread and yesterday's discussion) that the Operator Framework (and others) appear not to be involved in the initiative as this is something that this project has focused on
4) We should also consider a plan for how this hub is curated and managed - if end-users try the solution and the quality is not high (e.g. today there are already multiple options to install a give software package listed in hub) then they will move on, and we will not get many attempts to win them back over

TL;DR
An initiative like hub is key to the adoption of cloud native technologies and should be a central initiative for the CNCF and it's mission.   It is also too important to get it wrong and squander good will of end-users - when the core brand of the CNCF is placed on an initiative that is not successful, and/or does not gain traction, it dilutes the benefit and credibility of the whole community.

Kind Regards,
Alex


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Wright via Lists.Cncf.Io <chrisw=redhat.com@...>
Sent: 12 March 2020 12:33
To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Point of process
 
Yes, I completely agree

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 6:26 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I believe the issue here is simple.  The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret.  End of story.  We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what.  But please do
it in the OPEN.  The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:
>>
>> First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
>
>
> Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.
>
> Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.
>
>> I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.
>
>
> If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
>>
>> To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
>
> I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
>>
>> Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).
>
>
> Thank you for surfacing in a PR.
>
> The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.
>
>> Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.
>
>
> I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.
>
> And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.
>
> It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.
>
>
>>
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>> On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
>>
>> During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
>> the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
>> vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
>> submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
>> here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717
>>
>> The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
>> mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
>> discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
>> project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
>> significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
>> released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
>> fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
>> name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
>> community and CNCF support.
>>
>> As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
>> accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
>> in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.
>>
>> Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
>> secretive guidelines.
>>
>> I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
>> treated equally and fairly.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -chris
>>
>>
>>
>>


Re: Point of process

Erin Boyd
 

Amen!


On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 4:26 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I believe the issue here is simple.  The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret.  End of story.  We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what.  But please do
it in the OPEN.  The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:
>>
>> First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
>
>
> Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.
>
> Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.
>
>> I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.
>
>
> If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
>>
>> To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
>
> I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
>>
>> Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).
>
>
> Thank you for surfacing in a PR.
>
> The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.
>
>> Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.
>
>
> I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.
>
> And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.
>
> It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.
>
>
>>
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>> On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
>>
>> During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
>> the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
>> vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
>> submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
>> here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717
>>
>> The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
>> mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
>> discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
>> project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
>> significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
>> released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
>> fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
>> name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
>> community and CNCF support.
>>
>> As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
>> accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
>> in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.
>>
>> Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
>> secretive guidelines.
>>
>> I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
>> treated equally and fairly.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>




Re: Point of process

Chris Wright
 

Yes, I completely agree

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 6:26 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I believe the issue here is simple.  The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret.  End of story.  We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what.  But please do
it in the OPEN.  The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:
>>
>> First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
>
>
> Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.
>
> Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.
>
>> I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.
>
>
> If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
>>
>> To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
>
> I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
>>
>> Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).
>
>
> Thank you for surfacing in a PR.
>
> The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.
>
>> Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.
>
>
> I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.
>
> And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.
>
> It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.
>
>
>>
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>> On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
>>
>> During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
>> the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
>> vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
>> submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
>> here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717
>>
>> The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
>> mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
>> discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
>> project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
>> significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
>> released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
>> fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
>> name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
>> community and CNCF support.
>>
>> As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
>> accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
>> in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.
>>
>> Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
>> secretive guidelines.
>>
>> I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
>> treated equally and fairly.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -chris
>>
>>
>>
>>


Re: Point of process

alexis richardson
 

"kick" --> "kick off", obv ;-)

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:23 AM alexis richardson via Lists.Cncf.Io
<alexis=weave.works@...> wrote:

I believe the issue here is simple. The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret. End of story. We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what. But please do
it in the OPEN. The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:

First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.

Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry. What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.

Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.

I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.

If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."

To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal. It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF. It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?

Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).

Thank you for surfacing in a PR.

The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.

Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.

I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.

And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.

It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.



Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:

During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris





Re: Point of process

Davanum Srinivas
 

Heartily seconded! 

-- Dims


On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 6:23 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I believe the issue here is simple.  The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret.  End of story.  We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what.  But please do
it in the OPEN.  The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:
>>
>> First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
>
>
> Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.
>
> Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.
>
>> I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.
>
>
> If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
>>
>> To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
>
> I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
>>
>> Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).
>
>
> Thank you for surfacing in a PR.
>
> The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.
>
>> Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.
>
>
> I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.
>
> And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.
>
> It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.
>
>
>>
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>> On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
>>
>> During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
>> the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
>> vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
>> submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
>> here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717
>>
>> The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
>> mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
>> discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
>> project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
>> significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
>> released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
>> fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
>> name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
>> community and CNCF support.
>>
>> As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
>> accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
>> in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.
>>
>> Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
>> secretive guidelines.
>>
>> I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
>> treated equally and fairly.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>





--
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims


Re: Point of process

alexis richardson
 

I believe the issue here is simple. The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret. End of story. We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what. But please do
it in the OPEN. The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:

First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.

Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry. What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.

Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.

I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.

If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."

To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal. It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF. It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?

Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).

Thank you for surfacing in a PR.

The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.

Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.

I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.

And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.

It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.



Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:

During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris




Re: Point of process

Chris Wright
 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points: 
  • First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.

Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.

Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.

  • I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.

If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
  • To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
  • Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to). 

Thank you for surfacing in a PR.

The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.

Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.

I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.

And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.

It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.



Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris





Re: CNCF Hub

Uma Mukkara
 

Thumbs up on the Conf Hub from the Litmus community. The community has a hub (https://hub.litmuschaos.io) for chaos experiments of Kubernetes applications. It will be nice to see the community coming to hub and finding various types of resources such as operators, charts, chaos experiments and (perhaps) data migration plugins and more..

Best,
Uma.


Re: Point of process

Vinod
 

Thank you for raising this Chris.

I have contacted the TOC multiple times on unfair treatment and inequality, especially when it comes to TOC sponsorship and prioritisation even for sandbox submissions. From my experience, it's based on TOC intuition, personal or professional interest and the project merits or CNCF community interests are not always considered. Multiple other submissions are also waiting for TOC's mercy/reply. I have also requested the criteria/quality metrics for TOC's sponsorship, for which a proper answer wasn't given. It would be greatly appreciated if TOC could follow the CNCF principles (Fast is better than slow, Open, Fair, etc.)

If TOC is doing the right thing for the community I think it's also very important to be open and share details. Please also respond to community concerns.

Thanks,

Vinod

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points: 
  • First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
  • I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago. To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space). Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to). 
Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.

Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris





Re: Point of process

Liz Rice
 

Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points: 
  • First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
  • I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago. To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space). Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to). 
Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.

Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145

On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris





Point of process

Chris Wright
 

During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris


Re: CNCF Hub

Matt Farina
 

Erin,

Is there a reason we don't want to create a PR for sandbox so it gets going in the correct direction and follows the process of being assigned first to a SIG?

I was hoping to have a conversation with the TOC, CNCF staff, and other projects needing/having a hub (e.g., Falco and OPA) first for two reasons:
  1. The CNCF provides services for projects. Services for projects are part of the fostering and supporting work the CNCF does to help them. I wanted to see if this fits better as a project itself or as a service to support projects alongside the other services already provided.
  2. I wanted to make sure the other CNCF projects needing/having a hub were looped into this so they had an opportunity to evaluate and weight in on this. The existing conversations did not have enough CNCF project coverage. Hearing their feedback will help shape direction and may even influence point 1.

If the conversations next week suggest a project proposal is needed then I would argue it's a good time for that. Existing work to support projects from the CNCF did not need or rush to project proposals. I think we can be patient so that more people whom this impacts can come up to speed.

Of course, this is just my 2 cents.

Regards,
Matt

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Erin Boyd wrote:
Well it appears I have stuck my foot in my mouth...so apologies.
It looks like this is the most broad list we have for the CNCF community.

Can we safely assume that all the SIGs are also subscribed here?

Is there a reason we don't want to create a PR for sandbox so it gets going in the correct direction and follows the process of being assigned first to a SIG? Github seems like the most logical place to get the ball rolling imo.

Erin


On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:12 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Erin,

Which public mailing list are you referring to?

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 12:06 PM, Erin Boyd wrote:
Kris/Matt,
Can we please move all these discussions to the public mailing list and/or a PR for sandbox? Now that the repo has been made public, let's invite the other interested parties that aren't necessarily subscribed to the TOC mailing list to participate.
Thanks,
Erin


On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Matt - yes that is the point of the Monday call at 9am Pacific

Would you or anyone else care to join? 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:14 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Kris,

Did the Falco and OPA folks want to talk about this together prior to coming to a CNCF call? Possibly to prepare for the CNCF call.

- Matt

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 10:55 AM, Kris Nova wrote:
So we set up a call next Monday morning with Falco + OPA to discuss this. Looks like a lot of this has been happening without our communities involved. Should we all join forces for a CNCF wide call here?

Right now we are scheduled for Monday the 16th at 9am Pacific 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:26 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi <jj@...> wrote:
This is nice! 
🙌🏽🙇🏽‍♂️

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:48 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Thanks Dan & Matt for getting this public! 

We had a brief discussion on this in the closed TOC call yesterday, and it’s clear that many TOC members have questions and ideas around this. We are suggesting a public call with Dan, Matt, Gerred and whoever else are the interested parties (possibly in next week’s TOC meeting slot). The strategy behind the distribution and discovery of artifacts is extremely important for the whole community. 


--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145



On 11 Mar 2020, at 13:05, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Excited to see this. The sandbox criteria (https://www.cncf.io/sandbox-projects/) (point 3 specifically) states:

3. Projects commissioned or sanctioned by the CNCF, including initial code for CNCF WG collaborations, and “experimental” projects

Following this, I would suggest to the TOC we would proceed with moving this through the SIG process as a Sandbox project. Where I would like to understand is what is the graduation pathway for this - does it graduate to being a CNCF Service? An incubating project like any other? Furthermore, if it's a CNCF service, does it follow different requirements to leave sandbox?

I look forward to getting involved in the development and governance of this project. Thanks Dan, Matt, Cynthia, Sergio, and the Operator Framework / Helm teams for the discussion back at KubeCon!

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:35 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Hello folks, I want to share that the CNCF Hub which was alluded to in the last TOC call is now public. You can find the source at https://github.com/cncf/hub.  From the README:

Hub is a web-based application that enables finding, installing, and publishing packages and configurations for CNCF projects. For example, this could include Helm charts, Falco configurations, and Open Policy Agent (OPA) policies.

Discovering artifacts to use with CNCF projects can be difficult. If every CNCF project that needs to share artifacts creates its own Hub this creates a fair amount of repeat work for each project and a fractured experience for those trying to find the artifacts to consume. The CNCF Hub attempts to solve that by providing a single experience for consumers that any CNCF project can leverage.

The project, accessible at https://hub.cncf.io, is currently in development in a pre-alpha state. Support for Helm charts is in development with plans to support more projects to follow. Pull requests, especially those to support other CNCF projects, are welcome.


I look forward to some healthy discussion over the technical bits along with how to proceed positionally with the project. For example, is this something that should be a sandbox project or a service from the CNCF? Or, something else?

For those interested in some more history and context...

At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon SD, last November, a group of us got together. That include Dan Kohn along with representatives from the Operator Framewok, KUDO, and Helm. Note, both the Operator Framework and KUDO are projects that were and are proposed for the CNCF.

After that meeting I was asked to write an initial specification to kick things off. You can read there here. The specification was started to be turned into reality by Dan through Cynthia and Sergio.

For those who might wonder why this was not more public sooner... the plan was to do so but the virus impact on operations, like the movement of conferences, has impacted the schedule.

I want to thank Dan for bringing people together around this topic and working to make the idea a reality.

I'm happy to try to answer any questions. But, as I have only been involved during parts of this process (and often to a limited extent outside of the spec and initial meeting) I may have to defer to others for answers.

Regards,
Matt Farina







--
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





--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat


eboyd@...   





--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat


eboyd@...   




Re: CNCF Hub

Devdatta Kulkarni
 

This is an exciting development.

Having a central repository/hub for all the cloud-native artifacts makes sense.

-Devdatta



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Matt Farina via Lists.Cncf.Io <matt=mattfarina.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 2:35 PM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] CNCF Hub
 
Hello folks, I want to share that the CNCF Hub which was alluded to in the last TOC call is now public. You can find the source at https://github.com/cncf/hub.  From the README:

Hub is a web-based application that enables finding, installing, and publishing packages and configurations for CNCF projects. For example, this could include Helm charts, Falco configurations, and Open Policy Agent (OPA) policies.

Discovering artifacts to use with CNCF projects can be difficult. If every CNCF project that needs to share artifacts creates its own Hub this creates a fair amount of repeat work for each project and a fractured experience for those trying to find the artifacts to consume. The CNCF Hub attempts to solve that by providing a single experience for consumers that any CNCF project can leverage.

The project, accessible at https://hub.cncf.io, is currently in development in a pre-alpha state. Support for Helm charts is in development with plans to support more projects to follow. Pull requests, especially those to support other CNCF projects, are welcome.


I look forward to some healthy discussion over the technical bits along with how to proceed positionally with the project. For example, is this something that should be a sandbox project or a service from the CNCF? Or, something else?

For those interested in some more history and context...

At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon SD, last November, a group of us got together. That include Dan Kohn along with representatives from the Operator Framewok, KUDO, and Helm. Note, both the Operator Framework and KUDO are projects that were and are proposed for the CNCF.

After that meeting I was asked to write an initial specification to kick things off. You can read there here. The specification was started to be turned into reality by Dan through Cynthia and Sergio.

For those who might wonder why this was not more public sooner... the plan was to do so but the virus impact on operations, like the movement of conferences, has impacted the schedule.

I want to thank Dan for bringing people together around this topic and working to make the idea a reality.

I'm happy to try to answer any questions. But, as I have only been involved during parts of this process (and often to a limited extent outside of the spec and initial meeting) I may have to defer to others for answers.

Regards,
Matt Farina


Re: CNCF Hub

Erin Boyd
 

Well it appears I have stuck my foot in my mouth...so apologies.
It looks like this is the most broad list we have for the CNCF community.

Can we safely assume that all the SIGs are also subscribed here?

Is there a reason we don't want to create a PR for sandbox so it gets going in the correct direction and follows the process of being assigned first to a SIG? Github seems like the most logical place to get the ball rolling imo.

Erin


On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:12 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Erin,

Which public mailing list are you referring to?

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 12:06 PM, Erin Boyd wrote:
Kris/Matt,
Can we please move all these discussions to the public mailing list and/or a PR for sandbox? Now that the repo has been made public, let's invite the other interested parties that aren't necessarily subscribed to the TOC mailing list to participate.
Thanks,
Erin


On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Matt - yes that is the point of the Monday call at 9am Pacific

Would you or anyone else care to join? 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:14 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Kris,

Did the Falco and OPA folks want to talk about this together prior to coming to a CNCF call? Possibly to prepare for the CNCF call.

- Matt

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 10:55 AM, Kris Nova wrote:
So we set up a call next Monday morning with Falco + OPA to discuss this. Looks like a lot of this has been happening without our communities involved. Should we all join forces for a CNCF wide call here?

Right now we are scheduled for Monday the 16th at 9am Pacific 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:26 AM Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi <jj@...> wrote:
This is nice! 
🙌🏽🙇🏽‍♂️

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:48 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Thanks Dan & Matt for getting this public! 

We had a brief discussion on this in the closed TOC call yesterday, and it’s clear that many TOC members have questions and ideas around this. We are suggesting a public call with Dan, Matt, Gerred and whoever else are the interested parties (possibly in next week’s TOC meeting slot). The strategy behind the distribution and discovery of artifacts is extremely important for the whole community. 


--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145



On 11 Mar 2020, at 13:05, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Excited to see this. The sandbox criteria (https://www.cncf.io/sandbox-projects/) (point 3 specifically) states:

3. Projects commissioned or sanctioned by the CNCF, including initial code for CNCF WG collaborations, and “experimental” projects

Following this, I would suggest to the TOC we would proceed with moving this through the SIG process as a Sandbox project. Where I would like to understand is what is the graduation pathway for this - does it graduate to being a CNCF Service? An incubating project like any other? Furthermore, if it's a CNCF service, does it follow different requirements to leave sandbox?

I look forward to getting involved in the development and governance of this project. Thanks Dan, Matt, Cynthia, Sergio, and the Operator Framework / Helm teams for the discussion back at KubeCon!

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:35 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Hello folks, I want to share that the CNCF Hub which was alluded to in the last TOC call is now public. You can find the source at https://github.com/cncf/hub.  From the README:

Hub is a web-based application that enables finding, installing, and publishing packages and configurations for CNCF projects. For example, this could include Helm charts, Falco configurations, and Open Policy Agent (OPA) policies.

Discovering artifacts to use with CNCF projects can be difficult. If every CNCF project that needs to share artifacts creates its own Hub this creates a fair amount of repeat work for each project and a fractured experience for those trying to find the artifacts to consume. The CNCF Hub attempts to solve that by providing a single experience for consumers that any CNCF project can leverage.

The project, accessible at https://hub.cncf.io, is currently in development in a pre-alpha state. Support for Helm charts is in development with plans to support more projects to follow. Pull requests, especially those to support other CNCF projects, are welcome.


I look forward to some healthy discussion over the technical bits along with how to proceed positionally with the project. For example, is this something that should be a sandbox project or a service from the CNCF? Or, something else?

For those interested in some more history and context...

At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon SD, last November, a group of us got together. That include Dan Kohn along with representatives from the Operator Framewok, KUDO, and Helm. Note, both the Operator Framework and KUDO are projects that were and are proposed for the CNCF.

After that meeting I was asked to write an initial specification to kick things off. You can read there here. The specification was started to be turned into reality by Dan through Cynthia and Sergio.

For those who might wonder why this was not more public sooner... the plan was to do so but the virus impact on operations, like the movement of conferences, has impacted the schedule.

I want to thank Dan for bringing people together around this topic and working to make the idea a reality.

I'm happy to try to answer any questions. But, as I have only been involved during parts of this process (and often to a limited extent outside of the spec and initial meeting) I may have to defer to others for answers.

Regards,
Matt Farina







--
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





--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat


eboyd@...   





--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...   

2861 - 2880 of 7191