Re: Proposal - the future of Sandbox
Lee Calcote
A focus on healthy governance is an important consideration as we look across the project levels. Seeding small portions of governance requirements upfront positions the project for future success. In this regard, having aspects of each category of project requirements (e.g. adoption, governance, and so on) included in each project tier (growing progressively stronger with each tier) make good sense.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I see business models as relevant, but orthogonal to project requirements. If a project meets criteria of being useful (in part what I consider TOC sponsorship to convey), adopted; having healthy governance, being securely architected, and so on. Why would we need to consider whether current or future organizations (that are contributing or have never contributed) will use the project as an open core component of an offering, or something to run as SaaS or wrap pro-serv around? - Lee
|
|
|
|
Agenda for 5/19 Meeting
Amye Scavarda Perrin
|
|
|
|
Re: SPIFFE/SPIRE in public comment period for Incubation
Brandon Lum
We did a sig-security security assessment of SPIFFE/SPIRE, and the project has done a very good job with the security evaluation and risk analysis of its components. More details of the assessment: https://github.com/cncf/sig-security/tree/master/assessments/projects/spiffe-spire
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:43 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Incubation public comment period
Quinton Hoole <quinton@...>
+1. People have other jobs and vacations too. I don't see the need to rush this.
On Fri, May 15, 2020, 13:13 Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote: Strong agree with alexis - I’m booked solid these days and unless something is on fire it usually gets bumped down the list.
|
|
|
|
Re: Incubation public comment period
Vinod
Hi Chris, Not all DD reviews and discussions are open and public. The communications are happening in the private channels, this has been confirmed by the TOC in the meetings. I believe this proposal is related to my comments on the Contour submission, about the decision to go to the TOC vote without public comment ( https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/330#issuecomment-626820824 ), the particular submission was a bit out of normal from the beginning itself. I think reducing the time for public comment will result in less transparency. The transparency is one of the main issues in the TOC survey ( https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1gTTf6USC0wDOCbwd5goS7e4qjGO8nqiPQO4fl_D3OuQ/edit#slide=id.g71ebafc016_0_237 ) There are many other submissions which are waiting longer than the Contour, it would be appreciated if the proposal would improve the experience for all, not just a few. Thanks, Vinod
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:13 PM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote: Strong agree with alexis - I’m booked solid these days and unless something is on fire it usually gets bumped down the list.
|
|
|
|
Re: Incubation public comment period
Kris Nova <kris.nova@...>
Strong agree with alexis - I’m booked solid these days and unless something is on fire it usually gets bumped down the list.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I usually book at a minimum one week out from initial engagement and I believe that’s fairly common in the industry. So setting aside time for myself for something like this would require 7+ days to even get it on my calendar to review. — Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate
On 15 May 2020, at 09:38, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] Form for Sandbox
Brendan Burns
Feel free to go ahead and edit. I created a clone of it before I sent it out to the internet for comment, just in case someone wanted to troll. Edit away!
--brendan
From: Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 11:26 AM To: Brendan Burns <bburns@...> Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] Form for Sandbox How do you want feedback? email here or edit the form? scary that it appears i can edit :-) Many apologies for the delay in getting this together. Here is the first draft of the sandbox form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1bJhG1MuM981uQXcnBMv4Mj9yfV5_q5Kwk3qhBCLa_5A/edit?usp=sharing --brendan
|
|
|
|
2020 Brigade Annual Review
Vaughn Dice <Vaughn.Dice@...>
Greetings all,
The Brigade 2020 Annual Review PR has been posted at https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/449 per Sandbox project processes.
Thank you in advance for your time and energy!
Cheers,
Vaughn Dice
Brigade maintainer
|
|
|
|
Re: Form for Sandbox
Doug Davis <dug@...>
How do you want feedback? email here or edit the form? scary that it appears i can edit :-) Many apologies for the delay in getting this together. Here is the first draft of the sandbox form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1bJhG1MuM981uQXcnBMv4Mj9yfV5_q5Kwk3qhBCLa_5A/edit?usp=sharing --brendan
|
|
|
|
Re: Incubation public comment period
alexis richardson
Busy people just don't pay attention to Github notifications until it
really matters? On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:32 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Incubation public comment period
Maybe the weeks feel extra long these days but it seems just an extra unnecessary amount of time. All the work and review happens in the open so it's not like people will be surprised.
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:27 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote: I see no reason to move to one week if the meetings are two weeks --
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
|
Re: Incubation public comment period
alexis richardson
I see no reason to move to one week if the meetings are two weeks
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
apart. This is like an auction "asking once, asking twice..."
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:20 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Form for Sandbox
Matt Farina
Brendan, As someone who has a sandbox project to submit, this looks good to me. The form does need some cleanup (like a thing listed as optional is marked as required). Otherwise, this looks doable. - Matt Farina
On Fri, May 15, 2020, at 11:58 AM, Brendan Burns via lists.cncf.io wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Incubation public comment period
Matt Farina
This sparked a few thoughts I figured I would share... 1. If someone goes on vacation for a week they could miss a public comment period in its entirety. As someone who went through the 2 week period for my project I'd like it to go faster. But, as someone who takes vacations for a week I like that a comment period would not be so short that I'd miss it. 2. Has anyone ever commented in the second week? 3. In my experience, which may not mirror everyone, the DD's are primarily done by the projects. The SIGs they are presented to are small groups in the broader system. There are others who might have very relevant feedback. 4. Has anyone ever put in the time to provide comment feedback of any kind of useful or detailed nature? If no one is gonna use it does it matter? I'm obviously not of one mind on this. But, I figured someone should comment in a comment period on comment periods. - Matt Farina
On Fri, May 15, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Liz Rice wrote:
|
|
|
|
Form for Sandbox
Brendan Burns
Many apologies for the delay in getting this together. Here is the first draft of the sandbox form:
--brendan
|
|
|
|
Incubation public comment period
Liz Rice
Chris is suggesting reducing the comment period after a vote is called from two weeks to one week.
I can see the attraction, because in practice if people are going to comment it seems they’re likely to react pretty fast rather than leave it to the end of the comment period. And this won't be the first anyone hears about it because the DD will have been happening for some weeks prior to this. But it seems worth highlighting for public comment (how meta!)
|
|
|
|
Re: Proposal - the future of Sandbox
Reitbauer, Alois
I like the ideal to revamp the process. Being on both sides of the process I had to learn that it is far from ideal.
I would suggest to add a section which projects should join the CNCF, what they should bring to the CNCF and what they can expect. Ideally, we have a section of this is the projects we want.
I would also like to have guidance which projects the CNCF is actively looking for. I can see more projects that are like “ I run on Kubernetes and I am open source so I should be in the CNCF”. Having a number of topics where the landscape needs to grow would be helpful. Projects can still apply in other areas though. Eventually the TOC will decide what fits.
// Alois
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Liz Rice via lists.cncf.io" <liz=lizrice.com@...>
For anyone who wasn't on today's TOC call: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IlhqnmhSzs3aTPMkp_75JPYz6LD21aK1sNPrBNruDt0/edit#
|
|
|
|
Re: Proposal - the future of Sandbox
Reitbauer, Alois
As far as I understand the requirement the goal is to avoid pure OpenCore projects to be CNCF projects. Additionally, having multiple organizations as maintainers will ensure project continuity of the organization initially driving the project would lose interest.
Maybe having the requirement to have substantial PRs coming from multiple organisations would also partly serve this purpose. Most open source projects require substantial contributions to become a maintainer anyways.
// Alois
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Matt Klein via lists.cncf.io" <mattklein123=gmail.com@...>
FWIW I am uncomfortable making multi-org governance/maintainership a requirement of incubation, since this requirement has been contentious even at graduation level, and I know that several of our existing incubation projects do not satisfy this requirement.
I would rather see us nail this at graduation and allow incubation to be a time that multi-org governance/maintainership can be nurtured.
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:48 PM Bob Wise <bob@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Contour in Public Comment Period
Amye Scavarda Perrin
Contour has applied to join as an incubating project, https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/330. Matt Klein of the TOC has been handling due diligence and has called for public comment. https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/330#issuecomment-627086163 All SIGs, end users, TOC members, and community members are welcome to comment at this time on the mailing list. -- Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...
|
|
|
|
SPIFFE/SPIRE in public comment period for Incubation
Amye Scavarda Perrin
SPIFFE/SPIRE has requested to move to Incubation. Justin Cormack of the TOC has asked for the public comment period to open, https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/382#issuecomment-627490136 All SIGs, end users, TOC members, and community members are welcome to comment at this time on the mailing list.
|
|
|