|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:04 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote:
-- Christian Postatwitter: @christianposta
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
Michelle Noorali <michelle.noorali@...>
+1 binding
- I think this is an opportunity for us to create forums/feedback loops and improve communication between distribution like projects and core projects where it makes sense.
- If Kind or Minikube ever wanted to pop out from under the Kubernetes umbrella, I'd support those projects being under the CNCF as well.
- We have certain graduation requirements for specs. I'd like to continue having discussions around whether there should be specific/additional graduation requirements for distributions. For now, I'm looking forward to seeing how the neutral IP space and focus on collaboration with the CNCF community further shapes the project and community.
Best,
Michelle Noorali
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:38 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Currently k3s is a distro of k8s.
We used to have a k8s sandbox. If we still did then k3s would happily live there as a way to show k8s how to be a better project.
k3s is not a fork of Kubernetes. It is an opinionated way of delivering Kubernetes to IoT and Edge devices. Talking to Kubernetes steering committee made it clear that Kubernetes main design principle is extensibility, and the core system will be maintained to support Kubernetes development/deployment in a generic and configurable way. Therefore projects like k3s could benefit the ecosystem by expanding Kubernetes adoption footprint while remaining standalone.
For the areas where k3s maintainers can contribute back to Kubernetes, we should strongly encourage them to do so. Mending the relationship with Kubernetes community should be the first priority for the health of the project. By accepting k3s to Sandbox we get an opportunity to advise on its contributor experience, sustainability and governance.
-alena On Jul 31, 2020, at 11:07 AM, alexis richardson < alexis@...> wrote:
-1, nb
+1 to joe & bob comments. I am very keen to see k3s initiative do well I am even more keen to see it feed back into K8s
let's find a way to make this work! I don't know the answer and recognise how unfair this probably seems to the k3s folks
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:04 PM Joe Beda < jbeda@...> wrote: -1 non-binding My concerns echo Bob’s. There is a ton to like about k3s. There is a super enthusiastic user community and it has pioneered bringing together an opinionated set of components with a streamlined experience. That is awesome! Concrete concerns: - Is k3s a distribution? Many people publicly refer to it as such. The project page itself (k3s.io) has a headline saying “The certified Kubernetes distribution built for IoT & Edge computing”.
- Should the CNCF be a place to host distributions? (purpose discussion for the TOC)
- The name is very confusing. Kubernetes and k8s are synonymous. In fact, “k8s” is a registered trademark of the LF (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-list/). I’m not a lawyer, but these clearly commercially overlap and there is confusion in the marketplace. The LF may need to take action here regardless of the TOC decision.
- The places where k3s has made progress has, traditionally, included essentially forking parts of k8s and rebuilding. That forking has gotten thinner over time but is still there. There are promises around pushing changes upstream, but, to my knowledge, that has been minimal. The relationship there is fraught with a lot of history of friction and conflict.
- [point in time concern] The project is still pretty entangled with the rest of Rancher. This can be solved but obviously hasn’t been a priority. An example is that the documentation for k3s is part of the Rancher docs repo. Would the docs be included in the assets that come into the CNCF?
- The repo is also part of the Rancher org. The set of code owners is hidden and looks to be driven exclusively by Rancher (https://github.com/rancher/k3s/blob/master/CODEOWNERS).
There are a lot of thorny issues here. I have confidence in the TOC to be able to detangle these. Thanks, Joe -1 non-binding. I’m deeply concerned about the idea that CNCF is accepting what appears to be a Kubernetes fork into sandbox. The statements about “encouraging upstream” seem like good intentions only. Kubernetes as a project has, in my opinion, succeeded in part because of the community dedication to staying upstream and not forking. For clarity, I would be strongly in favor of k3s being part of Kubernetes upstream. -Bob CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. |
+1 binding. -alena.
On Jul 31, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote: -- Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
Currently k3s is a distro of k8s.
We used to have a k8s sandbox. If we still did then k3s would happily live there as a way to show k8s how to be a better project.
k3s is not a fork of Kubernetes. It is an opinionated way of delivering Kubernetes to IoT and Edge devices. Talking to Kubernetes steering committee made it clear that Kubernetes main design principle is extensibility, and the core system will be maintained to support Kubernetes development/deployment in a generic and configurable way. Therefore projects like k3s could benefit the ecosystem by expanding Kubernetes adoption footprint while remaining standalone.
For the areas where k3s maintainers can contribute back to Kubernetes, we should strongly encourage them to do so. Mending the relationship with Kubernetes community should be the first priority for the health of the project. By accepting k3s to Sandbox we get an opportunity to advise on its contributor experience, sustainability and governance.
-alena On Jul 31, 2020, at 11:07 AM, alexis richardson < alexis@...> wrote:
-1, nb
+1 to joe & bob comments. I am very keen to see k3s initiative do well I am even more keen to see it feed back into K8s
let's find a way to make this work! I don't know the answer and recognise how unfair this probably seems to the k3s folks
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:04 PM Joe Beda < jbeda@...> wrote: -1 non-binding My concerns echo Bob’s. There is a ton to like about k3s. There is a super enthusiastic user community and it has pioneered bringing together an opinionated set of components with a streamlined experience. That is awesome! Concrete concerns: - Is k3s a distribution? Many people publicly refer to it as such. The project page itself (k3s.io) has a headline saying “The certified Kubernetes distribution built for IoT & Edge computing”.
- Should the CNCF be a place to host distributions? (purpose discussion for the TOC)
- The name is very confusing. Kubernetes and k8s are synonymous. In fact, “k8s” is a registered trademark of the LF (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-list/). I’m not a lawyer, but these clearly commercially overlap and there is confusion in the marketplace. The LF may need to take action here regardless of the TOC decision.
- The places where k3s has made progress has, traditionally, included essentially forking parts of k8s and rebuilding. That forking has gotten thinner over time but is still there. There are promises around pushing changes upstream, but, to my knowledge, that has been minimal. The relationship there is fraught with a lot of history of friction and conflict.
- [point in time concern] The project is still pretty entangled with the rest of Rancher. This can be solved but obviously hasn’t been a priority. An example is that the documentation for k3s is part of the Rancher docs repo. Would the docs be included in the assets that come into the CNCF?
- The repo is also part of the Rancher org. The set of code owners is hidden and looks to be driven exclusively by Rancher (https://github.com/rancher/k3s/blob/master/CODEOWNERS).
There are a lot of thorny issues here. I have confidence in the TOC to be able to detangle these. Thanks, Joe -1 non-binding. I’m deeply concerned about the idea that CNCF is accepting what appears to be a Kubernetes fork into sandbox. The statements about “encouraging upstream” seem like good intentions only. Kubernetes as a project has, in my opinion, succeeded in part because of the community dedication to staying upstream and not forking. For clarity, I would be strongly in favor of k3s being part of Kubernetes upstream. -Bob CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. |
+1 binding. -alena.
On Jul 31, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote: -- Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:04 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote:
-- Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
k3s is not a fork of Kubernetes. It is an opinionated way of delivering Kubernetes to IoT and Edge devices. Talking to Kubernetes steering committee made it clear that Kubernetes main design principle is extensibility, and the core system will be maintained to support Kubernetes development/deployment in a generic and configurable way. Therefore projects like k3s could benefit the ecosystem by expanding Kubernetes adoption footprint while remaining standalone.
For the areas where k3s maintainers can contribute back to Kubernetes, we should strongly encourage them to do so. Mending the relationship with Kubernetes community should be the first priority for the health of the project. By accepting k3s to Sandbox we get an opportunity to advise on its contributor experience, sustainability and governance.
-alena
On Jul 31, 2020, at 11:07 AM, alexis richardson < alexis@...> wrote:
-1, nb
+1 to joe & bob comments. I am very keen to see k3s initiative do well I am even more keen to see it feed back into K8s
let's find a way to make this work! I don't know the answer and recognise how unfair this probably seems to the k3s folks
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:04 PM Joe Beda < jbeda@...> wrote: -1 non-binding My concerns echo Bob’s. There is a ton to like about k3s. There is a super enthusiastic user community and it has pioneered bringing together an opinionated set of components with a streamlined experience. That is awesome! Concrete concerns: - Is k3s a distribution? Many people publicly refer to it as such. The project page itself (k3s.io) has a headline saying “The certified Kubernetes distribution built for IoT & Edge computing”.
- Should the CNCF be a place to host distributions? (purpose discussion for the TOC)
- The name is very confusing. Kubernetes and k8s are synonymous. In fact, “k8s” is a registered trademark of the LF (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-list/). I’m not a lawyer, but these clearly commercially overlap and there is confusion in the marketplace. The LF may need to take action here regardless of the TOC decision.
- The places where k3s has made progress has, traditionally, included essentially forking parts of k8s and rebuilding. That forking has gotten thinner over time but is still there. There are promises around pushing changes upstream, but, to my knowledge, that has been minimal. The relationship there is fraught with a lot of history of friction and conflict.
- [point in time concern] The project is still pretty entangled with the rest of Rancher. This can be solved but obviously hasn’t been a priority. An example is that the documentation for k3s is part of the Rancher docs repo. Would the docs be included in the assets that come into the CNCF?
- The repo is also part of the Rancher org. The set of code owners is hidden and looks to be driven exclusively by Rancher (https://github.com/rancher/k3s/blob/master/CODEOWNERS).
There are a lot of thorny issues here. I have confidence in the TOC to be able to detangle these. Thanks, Joe -1 non-binding. I’m deeply concerned about the idea that CNCF is accepting what appears to be a Kubernetes fork into sandbox. The statements about “encouraging upstream” seem like good intentions only. Kubernetes as a project has, in my opinion, succeeded in part because of the community dedication to staying upstream and not forking. For clarity, I would be strongly in favor of k3s being part of Kubernetes upstream. -Bob CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. |
+1 binding. -alena.
On Jul 31, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote: -- Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
-1 NB for the same reasons echoed above. I would be quiet since there seemed to be a large consensus to accept it, but it seems like a poor precedent.
Similarly, I feel that Thanos and Cortex are similar enough that they should merge versus having two such projects under CNCF that have nearly identical architectures and lots of shared code.
| Jonah Kowall CTO
Text/Call: +1-617-500-3575 |
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:02 PM, Joe Beda <jbeda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
-1, nb
+1 to joe & bob comments. I am very keen to see k3s initiative do well I am even more keen to see it feed back into K8s
let's find a way to make this work! I don't know the answer and recognise how unfair this probably seems to the k3s folks
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:04 PM Joe Beda < jbeda@...> wrote:
-1 non-binding
My concerns echo Bob’s.
There is a ton to like about k3s. There is a super enthusiastic user community and it has pioneered bringing together an opinionated set of components with a streamlined experience. That is awesome!
Concrete concerns:
- Is k3s a distribution? Many people publicly refer to it as such. The project page itself (k3s.io) has a headline saying “The certified Kubernetes distribution built for IoT & Edge computing”.
- Should the CNCF be a place to host distributions? (purpose discussion for the TOC)
- The name is very confusing. Kubernetes and k8s are synonymous. In fact, “k8s” is a registered trademark of the LF (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-list/). I’m not a lawyer, but these clearly commercially overlap and there is confusion in the marketplace. The LF may need to take action here regardless of the TOC decision.
- The places where k3s has made progress has, traditionally, included essentially forking parts of k8s and rebuilding. That forking has gotten thinner over time but is still there. There are promises around pushing changes upstream, but, to my knowledge, that has been minimal. The relationship there is fraught with a lot of history of friction and conflict.
- [point in time concern] The project is still pretty entangled with the rest of Rancher. This can be solved but obviously hasn’t been a priority. An example is that the documentation for k3s is part of the Rancher docs repo. Would the docs be included in the assets that come into the CNCF?
- The repo is also part of the Rancher org. The set of code owners is hidden and looks to be driven exclusively by Rancher (https://github.com/rancher/k3s/blob/master/CODEOWNERS).
There are a lot of thorny issues here. I have confidence in the TOC to be able to detangle these.
Thanks,
Joe
-1 non-binding.
I’m deeply concerned about the idea that CNCF is accepting what appears to be a Kubernetes fork into sandbox.
The statements about “encouraging upstream” seem like good intentions only.
Kubernetes as a project has, in my opinion, succeeded in part because of the community dedication to staying upstream and not forking.
For clarity, I would be strongly in favor of k3s being part of Kubernetes upstream.
-Bob
|
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
|
+1 binding.
-alena.
On Jul 31, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
-1 non-binding
My concerns echo Bob’s.
There is a ton to like about k3s. There is a super enthusiastic user community and it has pioneered bringing together an opinionated set of components with a streamlined experience. That is awesome!
Concrete concerns:
- Is k3s a distribution? Many people publicly refer to it as such. The project page itself (k3s.io) has a headline saying “The certified Kubernetes distribution built for IoT & Edge computing”.
- Should the CNCF be a place to host distributions? (purpose discussion for the TOC)
- The name is very confusing. Kubernetes and k8s are synonymous. In fact, “k8s” is a registered trademark of the LF (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-list/). I’m not a lawyer, but these clearly commercially overlap and there is confusion in the marketplace. The LF may need to take action here regardless of the TOC decision.
- The places where k3s has made progress has, traditionally, included essentially forking parts of k8s and rebuilding. That forking has gotten thinner over time but is still there. There are promises around pushing changes upstream, but, to my knowledge, that has been minimal. The relationship there is fraught with a lot of history of friction and conflict.
- [point in time concern] The project is still pretty entangled with the rest of Rancher. This can be solved but obviously hasn’t been a priority. An example is that the documentation for k3s is part of the Rancher docs repo. Would the docs be included in the assets that come into the CNCF?
- The repo is also part of the Rancher org. The set of code owners is hidden and looks to be driven exclusively by Rancher (https://github.com/rancher/k3s/blob/master/CODEOWNERS).
There are a lot of thorny issues here. I have confidence in the TOC to be able to detangle these.
Thanks,
Joe
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:14 AM
To: aprokharchyk@... <aprokharchyk@...>, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [Suspected Spam] Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
-1 non-binding.
I’m deeply concerned about the idea that CNCF is accepting what appears to be a Kubernetes fork into sandbox.
The statements about “encouraging upstream” seem like good intentions only.
Kubernetes as a project has, in my opinion, succeeded in part because of the community dedication to staying upstream and not forking.
For clarity, I would be strongly in favor of k3s being part of Kubernetes upstream.
-Bob
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io" <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...>
Reply-To: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>
Date: Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:09 AM
To: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
|
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
|
On Jul 31, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
-1 non-binding.
I’m deeply concerned about the idea that CNCF is accepting what appears to be a Kubernetes fork into sandbox.
The statements about “encouraging upstream” seem like good intentions only.
Kubernetes as a project has, in my opinion, succeeded in part because of the community dedication to staying upstream and not forking.
For clarity, I would be strongly in favor of k3s being part of Kubernetes upstream.
-Bob
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io" <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...>
Reply-To: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>
Date: Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:09 AM
To: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
|
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
|
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jul 31, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jul 31, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 8:04 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
+1 NB On Jul 31, 2020, at 23:04, Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
Jeff Billimek
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
Owens, Ken <ken.owens@...>
+1 NB
Ken Owens
Vice President
Software Development Engineering
Mastercard
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
On Behalf Of Amye Scavarda Perrin
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 10:05 AM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
CAUTION:
The message originated from an EXTERNAL SOURCE. Please use caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to this email.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail message and any attachments are only for the use of the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient,
any disclosure, distribution or other use of this e-mail message or attachments is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please delete and notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
Siddharth Bhadri
+1 NB
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Lorenzo Fontana <fontanalorenz@...>
Date: Friday, 31 July 2020 at 8:48 PM
To: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 17:04 Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote:
--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager |
amye@...
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
Lorenzo Fontana <fontanalorenz@...>
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 17:04 Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote:
-- Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, 20:34 Amye Scavarda Perrin, < ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] k3s for Sandbox
Phil Estes
|
|
|
